CASE STUDY:
Talent Management: On-Boarding program of a global
operating bank
Ø
Introduction
§ Background information
§ The leadership dilemma
§ The need for on-boarding Interventions at the executive leadership
level
Ø Leadership development activities for
on-boarding executive leaders
§ The design assumptions underlying the Banks executive on-boarding process
§ The Banks executive on-boarding program: phases and interventions
Ø Lessons for designing on-boarding
programs for upcoming executive leaders
INTRODUCTION
In this case study, you will find the detailed
description of the executive on-boarding program of one of the
biggest globally acting bank in the world. Through a multi-phased approach
supported by comprehensive feedback and
coaching mechanisms, the bank’s programs have proven highly effective at both pre-empting leadership failures and for
accelerating the knowledge and relationships necessary to step into an executive role.
Background Information
This Bank example is one of the most comprehensive approaches to executive on-boarding in this field
today. It also has a proven track record with successful results. For example,
the Bank hired more than 200 external executives between 2001 and 2008 and had
experienced 25 terminations - a new hire turnover rate over the period of
around 13 percent. This compares to estimates as high as 40 percent turnover in
many large corporations. The Bank has tested its approaches out on a very large
sample of on-boarded executives - over five hundred internal and external over
this period. Over the last decade, the Bank has been actively involved in
acquisitions as well as organic growth. As a result, the organization must
annually on-board a significant number of executives both externally and internally
sourced. This demand has created many opportunities to learn about the efficacy
of various executive on-boarding interventions.
In addition, the Banks on-boarding program is expressly
designed to help new executives learn to navigate the bank’s large matrixes
organization as well as building and leveraging networks of relationships for
career success and for implementing company initiatives. These same demands are
common in most large corporations today. We think that this particular case
holds lessons that readers in a wide range of organizations will therefore find
useful.
The Leadership Dilemma
The first-time executive leader faces three dilemmas as
he or she steps into a new role. In a brief period of time, the leader must
gain mastery over a complex and demanding role. The learning demands are often
the most pronounced in a manager’s career. Second, expectations are high. It is
assumed that the incoming executive already has the seasoning to lead in the
new situation. After all, most executives have already spent years in
managerial roles beforehand. As a result, there is little developmental
feedback for those at the top of organizations. These two challenges produce
the third dilemma. The probability of the incoming executive’s derailment is
high. Complex new role demands combined with a lack of developmental support
can produce a “perfect storm” in terms of failure on the job.
As can easily be
imagined, the price of leadership failures in the executive ranks is very
costly for any organization. Beyond the direct costs of on-the-job development, severance, and
recruitment, there are more significant costs to the organization, such as
stalled organizational initiatives, loss of business knowledge, damage to
customer and staff relationships, dampened employee morale, and lost
opportunities. In addition, there are the costs of recruiting a
replacement as well as the replacement’s time in gaining mastery of the job and
setting his or her own agenda. Given these high costs,
there is a tremendous need for developmental interventions that place an
emphasis on pre-empting failures in senior leadership roles.
While some organizations have developed formal
on-boarding interventions, the typical approach tends to be quite limited in
scope and does little to effectively on-board an executive leader. Most are
simple orientation programs offering an opportunity to network with the CEO
and the executive team. They may also provide some form of overview of the
corporation, its financials, and its activities. A handful of organizations
such as General Electric and Toyota do have more sophisticated on-boarding
programs at the executive and general manager level, but such programs are very
rare in the corporate world. Instead interventions to pre-empt leadership
derailments tend to be dependent on performance appraisals and talent
management practices. The underlying
premise is that failures at the executive level can best be avoided through
continuous formal performance feedback to a manager and through the careful
selection of jobs and bosses over the life span of a manager’s career. We
also believe that developmental interventions focused solely on the transition
to the executive role are a necessity. Companies such as General Electric and
PepsiCo have long designed their leadership education programs around career
transitions, especially at executive levels. In other words, a comprehensive
on-boarding program at the executive level has an essential place in any
organization’s portfolio of leadership development initiatives.
The Need for On-Boarding Interventions at the Executive
Leadership Level
The transition from line management to an executive role
is a significant jump in terms of scale and complexity of the job. Executives operate
at the boundary between their organization and the external environment,
whereas most managers are more organizationally and functionally oriented.
Executives must also formulate company - wide strategies and play a critical
role in their implementation - roles which they played to a far lesser degree
prior to their executive appointments. Their decisions around staffing,
rewards, measurement systems, and culture create a context that shapes the
strategic choices made by managers and specialists throughout the organization.
The executive role comes with enormous visibility and
accountability. It is extremely demanding with little time for learning on the
job. At the same time, developmental feedback and coaching for executives tend
to be minimal. There are the occasional opportunities for formal coaching and
executive education programs. But beyond these interventions, there is usually
little else. In conclusion, for many managers, the promotion to an executive
leadership role will be the steepest jump in their career history, and
paradoxically the one with the least
amount of transition support.
The limited developmental support is a result of several
factors. First, it is assumed by most organizations that their senior - most
talent is well seasoned, given the many years of managerial experiences
required for entry into the executive suite. Yet positions in functional line
management roles are rarely broad enough to provide sufficient preparatory
experience.
Second, the promotion itself and the many years of prior
management experience can produce an often misplaced self-confidence in new
executives that they are up to the task. This sense of self-assurance may
discourage new executives from seeking out developmental feedback and from
being more proactive in self-reflection and learning. There is a natural
desire to appear in charge -in other words, to be seen as an effective leader
immediately. Seeking coaching and
feedback would dispel this impression, and therefore executives may be hesitant
to seek either.
Third, in the executive suite, the environment is also
more politicized. Peers at the executive level are often competitors jousting
for the top roles. As a result, developmental support and feedback from
colleagues tend to be far more difficult to obtain. In addition, many CEOs do
not see coaching their executives as an essential part of their role. So the
new executive’s superior may provide limited or no developmental guidance.
All of these forces coalesce to increase the probability
of leadership derailments at the senior - most levels of organizations. The
problem is even more extreme for organizations when outsiders are hired into
executive jobs. As noted earlier, one estimate is that 40 percent of senior
managers hired from the outside fail within their first eighteen months in the
role. Given the above discussion, it is easy to see why a developmentally
oriented program to help transition managers into executive leadership roles
might not only be helpful but essential. But what exactly should be the aim of
such interventions and how best to design them?
Ideally, a well-designed on-boarding intervention can
and should achieve three outcomes. The first is to minimize the possibility of
derailment on the job. By accelerating the new executive’s understanding of the role demands and by providing support through constructive feedback,
coaching, and follow -up, a well- designed program can and should pre-empt
failures. The second outcome is to accelerate the performance results of the
new leader. For example, research suggests that a senior - level manager
requires an average of 6 months to reach a break-even point the moment at which
the new leader’s contribution to the organization exceeds the costs of bringing
him or her on board and he or she has acquired a critical base of insight into
the job. Effective on-boarding interventions should shorten this cycle of
learning by accelerating the development of a network of critical
relationships, clarifying leadership and performance expectations, and facilitating
the formulation of more realistic short- and medium- term performance
objectives.
A third outcome for on-boarding interventions concerns
organizations that are aggressively pursuing acquisitions or experiencing high
growth rates. In both cases, they must grapple with socializing an influx of
outside senior managers. An effective on-boarding intervention should
facilitate a far smoother integration and socialization experience for these
incoming executives. It accomplishes this by helping them to rapidly acquire an
understanding of the business environment, socializing them into the
organization’s culture and politics, building a network of critical
relationships, and familiarizing them with the operating dynamics of the
executive team. In the sections to follow, readers will see how the Banks
on-boarding program successfully achieves these outcomes.
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FOR EXECUTIVE LEADERS
The impetus for the Banks interest in executive
on-boarding is a product of its own corporate history. Over the last decades,
the bank has experienced dramatic growth through acquisitions. It began as a
small regional bank and has grown into one of the largest companies in the
world. As a result of this history of aggressive acquisitions, it discovered a
need to more effectively on-board executive leaders from acquired companies and
to quickly assimilate them into the Banks standards and expectations for
performance. The organization’s leadership development group was very familiar
with the research on executive derailment, which showed high failure rates for
executives who were on-boarded into acquiring companies. In response, the bank
developed on-boarding interventions. Over time, these programs have been
expanded to the organization’s internal executive promotions to ensure that
these individuals will succeed as well as feel that they were receiving
attention equal to the outsiders.
It is important to note, however, that executive
on-boarding is only one of several processes that the bank deploys for the
leadership development of its executive talent. While we explore this one activity
in depth in this case study, the banks success with leadership talent is a
product of its multi-faceted approach to development at the executive level, along
with his executive leadership team unwavering support for leadership
development. The latter is a critical driver of the banks success in this area.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the range of the banks executive leadership
development activities is extensive and includes selection, on-boarding,
performance management, processes to upgrade executive talent, developmental
experiences, and compensation.
FIGURE
1 Executive Development at the Bank
A critical factor is that the executive development
strategy is championed by the banks CEO. In overview fashion, Figure 1
highlights the core dimensions of executive development at the bank. In
addition, the CEO meets every summer with his top executives to review the
organizational health and development strategies of each business. These
meetings are personal in nature, with no presentation decks or thick books
outlining HR procedures. But they are rigorous. Business leaders come to the
sessions with a concise document (the goal
being three pages or fewer to ensure simplicity) that describes strengths and
weaknesses in their units leadership talent pipelines, given business
challenges and goals. During these conversations, executives make specific
commitments regarding current or potential leaders - identifying the next
assignment, special projects, promotions, and the like. The CEO follows up with
his executives in his quarterly business reviews to ensure that they have
fulfilled their commitments. With this active commitment at the very top of the
organization, leaders throughout the Bank sense that leadership development is
a critical activity for the company. As a result, it is a widely held belief
that leadership talent directly affects the performance of the bank. This
belief sets up a mandate for the organization to hire and keep great leadership
talent.
Finally, the organizational culture promoted by the CEO
and his board member fellows is one that encourages candor, trust, teamwork,
and accountability at all levels in the organization, especially at the
executive level. The company has a deep comfort with differentiating individual
performance (based on what is achieved as well as on how these achievements are
attained). There is also a belief that today s top performers are not
necessarily tomorrow’s - that even the best leaders can fall behind or derail.
As a result, the corporate culture is one in which the truth is more highly
valued than politeness or tolerance for average or poor performance. These
beliefs drive what and how the bank builds and measures leadership success,
whether it is in programs, performance management, or selection. This
overarching environment is critical to the success of the bank’s executive on-boarding
program. One cannot understand the on-boarding process without first
appreciating the bank’s commitment to leadership and high performance.
The Design Assumptions Underlying the Banks Executive On-Boarding
Process
Underpinning the Banks on-boarding interventions is a
set of fundamental assumptions that have shaped its design features. These
assumptions are the product of “lessons learned” from earlier experiences with
on-boarding interventions and experiments. The baseline assumption is that
successful on-boarding occurs over time -specifically during the new
executives first twelve to eighteen months on the job. Thus, any on-boarding
process must be supported by multiple interventions instead of a single event,
say at entry into the executive role. Interventions must occur at intervals
over the executive’s first year to eighteen months, rather than solely within
the first few months into the job. To be effective, on-boarding must also be
supported by multiple resources, especially in terms of stakeholder resources.
To engage solely the new executive’s superior (the hiring executive) is not
sufficient to ensure a successful on-boarding experience. Instead the fullest
possible spectrum of stakeholders must be involved in the new executive’s
selection, entry, and on-boarding. Finally, interventions are completely
dependent on the quality of the interaction between the executive and his or
her stakeholders. A purely paperwork - driven or bureaucratic process will not
produce optimum results. The approach must therefore focus on the quality of
dialogue and interaction, rather than on documentation and formal processes.
These assumptions have directly shaped the on - boarding
interventions that the Bank deploys. For example, the bank’s program is
designed around multiple phases. Different kinds of interventions occur in each
phase. It engages the new executive’s many stakeholders in a simple,
transparent process, with the aim of achieving a broad range of outcomes.
Dialogue and feedback are at the core of all of the various interventions. In
the discussion that follows, we will examine how these design assumptions play
out in each of the major phases of the on -boarding process.
The Banks Executive On-Boarding Program: Phases and
Interventions
The on-boarding experience spans four core phases -
selection of the new executive, initial entry into the executive role, a
mid-point phase of 100 to 130 days on the job, and a final review phase at the
end of the first year. We will examine each of these phases, its central
activities, and its goals.
Selection Phase The first element of a successful on - boarding process
is the selection process itself. While expertise and experience are the
overriding criterion, there are additional dimensions when it comes to
selection at the Banks: leadership ability and cultural fit. If the new
executive is lacking leadership and interpersonal skills and cultural
sensitivity, he or she will have a much higher probability of derailing. To
ensure this does not happen, the human resources function at the Banks devotes
a great deal of attention to its partnerships with executive search firms.
Recruiters must understand the banks culture and leadership requirements when
hired to conduct an executive-level search. In addition, a leadership development
officer from HR will often interview the candidate to assess cultural fit with
bank, value to the team, and leadership approach. This information is meant to
complement data from other potential stakeholders who are interviewing the
candidate about his or her expertise and experience. The HR partner will
solicit responses to the following types of questions from all the
interviewers:
1.
Would you personally trust your career to this person
[the candidate]?
2.
Do you see yourself learning from him or her?
3.
Is this person capable of putting enterprise objectives
ahead of his or her own goals and working well across lines of business and
constituents?
4.
Would this person complement the direct team that he or
she would be a part of?
5.
Would this person be able to accept, process, and apply
candid coaching and feedback in order to continuously improve?
6.
Can you see this person leading from and living the
company’s core values? Would he or she fit our culture? ”
7.
Does this person have the potential to assume more
responsibility in the future?
Answers to these questions provide insights into the
candidate’s potential for a fit or misfit with the bank’s
culture and for his or her credibility as a leader. If the candidate is hired,
the answers to these and other interview questions are then provided to the
individual upon his or her arrival into the job. The sources of feedback,
however, remain anonymous.
Job design is another essential part of the selection
process. A clear and calibrated job specification is spelled out and supported
by stakeholders before a search begins. Critical stakeholders will be
interviewed by the HR partners about what is required in the job, as well as
other dimensions that are not critical but helpful for the candidate to
possess. This selection process is designed so that the hiring executive does
not make a blind selection - say hiring someone with a similar style to his or
her own. The multi-stakeholder involvement also ensures that the hiring
executive has a clear sense of the demands of the job from the perspectives of
the widest range of stakeholders.
Critical to this phase is the role of the HR partner.
This individual acts as a “chief talent officer” during the hiring process and
on - boarding process of each new executive. Usually with ten to fifteen years
of experience, they normally possess a leadership development and/or
organization development background. Most have deep experience in hiring and
developing executives. As a result, these HR partners have a strong degree of
credibility in the eyes of the new executive and his or her stakeholders. The
HR partner’s responsibilities are broad. They follow essentially the
executive’s on-boarding process from beginning to end.
Entry Phase Following hiring, the new executive’s initial few weeks on the
job are critical ones. During this time, he or she must accomplish four
outcomes: (1) develop business acumen specific to the new role, (2) learn the
organizational culture, (3) master the role’s leadership demands, and (4) build
critical organizational relationships.
From the standpoint of business acumen, the new
executive must be able to efficiently and quickly learn customer and financial
information specific to the new role. In turn, he or she must set realistic
goals and objectives based on this information. On the cultural dimension, he
or she must acquire an understanding of the written and unwritten norms of
behavior within the organization. From the standpoint of leadership demands,
new executives must be able to rapidly determine the organization’s
expectations of them as well as establish leadership expectations within their
teams. Finally, it is imperative that the new executive be able to identify and
build relationships with key organizational stakeholders.
To meet these demands, three major categories of
interventions are used: (1) tools and processes, (2) orientation forums, and
(3) coaching and support. Tools and processes include an on-boarding plan and
new leader/team and new leader/peer integration processes. Orientation forums
include a general new employee orientation and a new executive orientation
program. For coaching and support, there are three primary providers: the
hiring executive, an HR generalist, and the HR partner.
Each of these interventions are described below:
During the first week on the job, the HR partner
prepares the on-boarding plan for the executive. This early engagement with the
HR partner ensures that from the very start the HR partner will be viewed as a
critical resource for the newly appointed executive. The integration plan
itself has two primary outcomes. One is to provide the new leaders with basic
yet critical information about the business they will soon be leading. They
are given an overview of their units ’ financials, the units ’ business plans,
key initiatives, assessments of their teams ’ leadership talent, and other
important background information such as biographies of key managers, customer
surveys, and recent presentations on key issues in the units. The second
outcome is to have the executives define successes for their first ninety days
on the job. They must identify these along three dimensions: financial,
leadership, and organizational. The plan also explores early obstacles the
executives are likely to face in terms of people, processes, and technology.
The new executives must look at their own developmental issues and how they can
best address these. At this time, the executives are given the names of their
peer coaches (fellow executives) and senior advisors (typically at the same
level or above). The peer coaches are resources for “insider” information. They
will have benefited from having their own peer coaches in the past, and
therefore see the importance of their role. To accelerate the relationship
between executives and peer coaches, the HR partners will often try to find
some common ground in backgrounds, such as attending the same college or
experience in similar industries or companies. Consideration is also given to
those who are known internally to be good coaches and who will be candid with
the new executives. The senior advisors provide the new executives with
mentoring around their careers. In contrast to the peer coaches, the advisors
have a broader view of the organization, given their seniority. Often these are
people with whom the new executives may need to undertake extensive near - term
projects. They often are chosen from outside the lines of business as the newly
hired individuals, as projects at the executive level often require cross
-company partnerships.
In the first one to three weeks, further planning is
used to identify emerging challenges in the new role, people - related issues,
key relationships that must be built, and ongoing management processes that
need to be established. This planning is captured in the New Leader - Team
Integration Session — a critical experience in the entry phase. The objective
of this process is to facilitate an effective working relationship between the
new leader and his or her team. The process creates an opportunity for both the
leader and the team to establish open channels of communication, exchange
views, and become more acquainted with their respective operating styles and
expectations. When this planning process is done well, it can dramatically
shorten the time required for the new executive to become effective on the job.
The New Leader - Team Integration Session ideally occurs
within the first thirty to sixty days of the new assignment. The process
involves three steps, all of which are facilitated by the HR partner (sometimes
and often in partnership with an HR partner). In the first step, the HR partner
meets with the new executive leader prior to the integration session. The HR
partner provides the new executive with an overview of the integration session
’ s objectives and mechanics, identifies the executive’s own objectives for
the session, and selects the questions that will be used to create a mutually
beneficial dialogue between the executive and his or her new team. In addition,
the HR partner gauges the new leader’s interests and concerns. Questions to
solicit this information for the new executive include:
1.
What do you need to know about your team?
2.
What don’t you know about your team?
3.
What are your concerns?
4.
What things are most important to you as a leader?
5.
What does the team need to know about your expectations
and operating style?
6.
How can the team best support you in your transition
into the new role?
7.
What key messages would you like to send to the team?
Following this meeting with the executive, the HR
partner meets with the new leader’s team - either individually or preferably
and more often as a group - without the new leader. The purpose of this second
step is to develop a preliminary understanding of the group’s issues and
concerns. Typically, the HR partner will solicit this information using
questions such as the following:
1.
What do you already know about the new executive?
2.
What don’t you know, but would like to know?
3.
What advice do you have for the new executive that will
help him or her be even more effective?
4.
What questions do you have for the new executive?
5.
What are your concerns about him or her becoming the
leader of the team?
6.
What major obstacles are you encountering as a team?
What opportunities exist?
7.
What is going well that you would like to keep? What is
not going well that you would like to change?
8.
What do you need from the new executive to allow us to
be even more effective?
Following these two preliminary meetings for data -
gathering, the New Leader - Team Integration Session is conducted over a
half-day period. After describing the meeting objectives and ground rules, the
team goes off without the executive to gather responses to their new superior’s
“questions to the team.” In the meantime, the new leader is debriefed on the
group’s interview responses, and he or she prepares responses to these for the
team. The team and the leader then meet together for two hours of dialogue.
The environment is a non - threatening one. The HR partner begins by reviewing
the group’s overall messages to the leader. For example, an insight might
emerge that direct reports are interpreting certain of their superior’s
behavior in a negative light. The leader comments on the team’s responses as
well as communicates his or her key messages to the team and how he or she
plans to address the feedback. Facilitated by the HR partner, both the leader
and the team establish formal commitments to one another and identify future
issues to be addressed. For example, the new executive may commit to a new
behavior or set of actions or a clearer vision. The leader might shift his or
her management practices so that more time is spent on addressing future
issues.
In addition to the New Leader - Team Integration
Session, there is also a New Peer Integration Session, which is also held
within the first thirty to sixty days of the new executive’s arrival. This
session creates an opportunity for the executive to network with new peers, to
seek advice and guidance on on - boarding, to learn
about norms, and to obtain general support. It also allows the individual’s
peers to learn about their new colleague’s background, operating style, and
priorities and to build an initial working relationship. Similar in design to
the New Leader - Team Integration Session, it involves three stages. First, the
HR partner meets with the new executive to describe the process, select
discussion questions, and explore special issues and concerns. Typical
interview questions for the preparation phase include:
1.
What would you like your new peers to know about you?
2.
What would you like to know about your new peers?
3.
Provide a summary of your personal and work history that
others might not know.
4.
What are you interested in outside of work?
5.
How can your new peers support you as you transition
into the executive team?
The HR partner then meets with the executive’s new peers
and solicits responses to the following questions:
1.
What would you like your new peers to know about you?
2.
How would you describe the team’ s written and unwritten
rules
3.
What would you like your new peer to know about the
team?
4.
The things that make a person successful on this team
include
5.
The things that can derail a person on this team include
6.
The things that help a person integrate well into this
company include
7.
What can you tell your new peer about each team member’s
operating style?
In addition to responses to these questions, the HR
partner also gathers from members of the peer team information on their areas
of competence for which they might serve as a resource to the new executive,
their interests outside of work, and the names of their spouses and children.
This data is recorded on index cards for the new executive.
The integration session is broken into three parts.
There is a short overview, a setting of objectives, and an introduction of the
team and the new peer. This is followed by the peer team and the new peer
gathering responses to each other’s questions in separate rooms. Each side’s
responses are recorded on flip charts. The team and their new peer then gather
together in a conference room. Facilitated by the HR partner, there is sharing
of the responses and dialogue. Basically, the session enables transparency and
partnering - both cornerstones of success in the Banks culture. It drives joint
ownership for success as well, and, like the New Team Integration Session, it
facilitates the acceleration of relationships with peers - individually and
collectively.
Earlier, we had mentioned that orientation programs were
a component of the entry phase. Within the first week on the job, the new
leader attends a welcome orientation (providing an overview of the Bank’s
business, history, culture, values), which is run on every Monday for all new
employees. Leaders then meet with their HR partners to discuss the on-boarding
plan. Within the leaders’ first few months, they are automatically registered
to attend the New Executive Orientation Program. This program is sponsored
directly by the CEO. Its purpose is for the executive to network with other new
executives as well as the CEO and with his executive team as well as other
executives previously hired into the bank from the outside. The program itself
is one-and-a-half days long. On the first day of the program, there is an
informal panel with executives who have been hired into the bank within the
last two years. The panel of executives shares their own on-boarding
experiences. They explain their experiences, what the new executives can expect, their personal “lessons learned.” This is followed
by presentations by the CEO and top executives, who cover topics such as the
corporate values and culture, leadership philosophies and expectations, company
strategy and finances, as well as other key business units’ growth strategies
and key enterprise initiatives. A social networking event then follows hosted
by the CEO and his executive team. This orientation provides the new executives
with insights into the business, the bank’s culture, the CEO expectations for leaders, and how executives can derail. Beyond the
information provided in the orientation, a parallel goal is to create a cohort
identity for the new executives. This is important, as they will likely need to
work with one another on key projects or business initiatives in the future.
The cohort also provides the new executives with a safe haven or resource group
to ask questions and to help navigate the complexities of the bank.
Mid - Point Phase (100 to 130 days): Three
to four months into their new assignments, the executives take part in the Key
Stakeholder Check-In Session. This intervention involves receiving written and
verbal feedback from a select list of their key stakeholders. The experience is
designed to accelerate the development of effective working relationships
between the new leaders and the stakeholders, who now share responsibility for
the new leaders’ success. It also aids in helping the newly hired executives
understand the feedback and coaching culture that is unique to the Banks rich
feedback environment. It is essentially a process for the new leaders to seek
and receive early feedback regarding how their stakeholders view the leaders ’
on-boarding process, operating style, leadership approach, and cultural fit. It
can uncover whether there are potential disconnects between others’ perceptions
and the leaders’ actual intentions. It can also further clarify the
expectations of key stakeholders. Most importantly, it can be used to allow the
executives to make early adjustments in their approaches and in turn avoid
their own potential derailment. Like the earlier integration sessions, it also
gives voice to the stakeholders. They can take advantage of a process that
permits them to surface potentially sensitive issues or concerns in an
anonymous manner. They can share organizational insights that are not readily
apparent to the new leaders. They can also communicate special needs to their
new leaders.
In terms of its timing, the bank discovered (using a six
sigma process and tools) that stakeholder reviews held close to a new leader’s
entry were not effective. The executive did not always have sufficient
self-confidence to respond positively to the feedback received from
stakeholders. Similarly, staff did not possess well-formed opinions of their
superiors or peers before the three-month timeframe. They may not have seen
enough of a particular behavior to determine whether it was a pattern or not.
On the other hand, within three to four months, patterns in the executive’s
behavior become quite clear. With a timeframe within 130 days, it was harder
for new executives to discount feedback that was more critical of their
approach. They could not claim that their behavior was simply due to a one-time
event. That said, delaying feedback to the executive until the six-month mark
or later created a serious dilemma. By that point, the executive’s behavior may
become typecast. After six months in the job, it was very difficult for the
executive to escape the label. For this reason, the feedback occurs ideally by
the 130 -day milestone.
The process behind the Key Stakeholder Check-In involves
an initial planning session with the new leader and the HR partner in which
they review and revise the questions that will be used to solicit insights.
For example, the HR partner will identify specific areas in which the leader
would like to receive feedback and from whom. The HR partner then contacts the
leader’s key stakeholders to conduct an anonymous fifteen-to thirty-minute
interview with each stakeholder. Beyond the questions identified by the new
leader, there are additional questions to stakeholders. These often include:
1.
What are your initial impressions of your new leader’s
strengths?
2.
What are the potential landmines/obstacles that he or
she may come up against?
3.
What advice would you give to the new leader to be even
more effective and to accelerate performance in the role?
4.
What one to three things do you specifically need from
this individual?
5.
To increase effectiveness, what does this individual
need to (1) continue doing, (2) stop doing, and (3) start doing?
The HR partner then organizes the interview responses,
identifies themes, and records specific verbatim comments from specific
stakeholders. They then meet with the new leader and share the interview
results. In the review session, the executive constructs an action plan to
address specific feedback items and prepares for a discussion with their boss.
With their superior, they review the action plan and the overall on-boarding
experience overall. The HR partner and the leader hold follow-up meetings to
evaluate progress on the action plan and for further coaching. Sometimes these
discussions will uncover a problem that even the individual’s boss was unaware
of. It is worth noting that the boss is not one of the people the HR partner
interviews for this very reason.
This comprehensive check-in process brings great clarity
to identifying the new leader’s strengths but also highlights development needs
and problem areas. For example, new executives might learn that they possess
strong interpersonal skills and are perceived as highly competent and
action-oriented. On the other hand, the same executives might learn that they
still need to build stronger connections with key leaders and learn various
business strategies and initiatives at a more granular level. They also may
receive feedback that they must spend more time on developing a clearer
business vision and communicating to their team. Staff might wish more
one-on-one time with the executive. Out of the action planning process,
concrete steps will be identified that this executive must undertake over the
coming months to build on the identified strengths and address the problem
areas.
The Final Phase (1 to 1.5 years): Typically 12 to 18 months after their stakeholder
reviews, the new executives will receive a 360-degree feedback assessment,
which provides the leaders with feedback on their leadership competencies (see
Figure 2 or the Bank’s leadership competencies). The timing is designed so that
the executives have had an opportunity to make significant progress on the
development areas identified in their stakeholder reviews. They now also have
had complete performance cycles under their belts. If executives are
successful, their improvements will show up in the 360 feedback data. The tool
itself is designed around the bank’s leadership model as well as common
derailing behaviors. When leaders receive their 360 feedback, they will again
sit down with their HR partners to review it, compare it to stakeholder
feedback, and use the outputs to further shape their development plans and
actions. This process also triggers another more formal development discussion
between the individual executive and his or her boss. The 360 feedback is used
along with other data and feedback mechanisms as input into the individual’s
performance ratings and reviews.
FIGURE
2 The Bank Senior Executive
Model
LESSONS FOR DESIGNING ON - BOARDING FOR EXECUTIVE LEADERS
Sooner or later in their first year in the executive
role, most leaders will face some type of major stumbling block. An executive
on-boarding process can and should provide the support and feedback that will
assist executives in successfully addressing hurdles. The most effective
programs also act as early warning systems that allow the executive and the
organization to preempt the possibility of derailment. As we have noted, the
process must be supported by multiple interventions that occur at intervals
over the executive’s first year rather than solely at the moment of entry into
the job. It must also proactively engage the new executive’s multiple
stakeholders from the moment of selection to the end of the on-boarding cycle.
Effective engagement is completely dependent on the quality of interaction
between the new executives and their full range of stakeholders. In addition,
stakeholders must feel a high degree of ownership in the process itself, which
increases their ownership in the executives’ success.
In assessing how well your own organization on-boards
it’s most talented future executives, there are several critical questions to
ask. Does your organization treat on-boarding as a one-time orientation event
or as a longitudinal process? What is the breadth of interventions it employs
from integration tools to coaches to formal feedback? Does it proactively
engage all the new executive’s stakeholders in a candid process that generates
constructive feedback and clarifies expectations? Does the process deploy
interventions at regular intervals throughout the first year for the new
executive? Are these “toll gates ” built around
critical learning and feedback windows or are they more arbitrary or shaped by
the corporate calendar? Are the interventions in time to gather critical and
valid feedback for the new executive so that he or she can constructively
respond and maintain credibility?
While such programs have traditionally been geared to
external executive hires, internally promoted executives can benefit as greatly
from formal on-boarding. While the internal hire may understand the corporate
culture well, the role demands of executive leadership are as great for the
internal hire as the external one. So it is useful to ask whether your
organization treats its insider promotions differently. Does the organization
assume they do not need on-boarding support? What are patterns in how insider
promotions fail? What might be done to assist insiders in a more proactive and
constructive manner in their own on -boarding experiences?
In this case study, their use of HR partners and the
various dialogue and feedback - based integration experiences allow the new
executives to obtain rich, candid, and ongoing information on their progress
over the first year. What vehicles if any does your organization provide to new
executives to rapidly gain constructive feedback on their leadership approaches
and performance? What support does your organization provide in helping the
executives to act on that information?
For on-boarding to be effective, a number of individuals
need to “own” the new leader’s success. In this regard, one of the more
important lessons from the case study is the pivotal role of the HR partner.
This individual in essence owns the executive’s success from the moment of
selection to the end of his or her first year on the job. Their job is to make
certain the executives successfully on-board. In addition, they engage the new
executives’ superior, several peers, and the subordinates in the ownership
process. Therefore some questions to ask about your own organization’s process
include: Does your organization have individuals who are dedicated to ensuring
the success of new executives? Are they influential at all stages of the
executives’ on-boarding experience? Ideally, there are multiple owners such as
peers and senior advisors. What ways, if any, does your organization engage the
peers and superiors of the new executives in supporting their successful
on-boarding?
As we noted at the beginning of this case study, an
effective on-boarding process does not exist in a vacuum. It is highly
dependent on a supportive culture. Finally we would highlight that it is
important to assess more broadly your organization’s commitment to talent
management. Questions to ask would include: How deeply committed are your CEO
and senior team to leadership development? Does the firm have a clear talent
management strategy? Does the culture encourage individuals to learn and adapt?
Is it a culture in which candid constructive feedback is available and
rewarded? What are the breadth and depth of your organization’s talent
management and development interventions? Are they supported by well-aligned rewards,
performance feedback processes, useful metrics, and the culture?