|
Timing Is Everything
While it's always a good idea to develop bench strength, a CIO should be careful about how and when a potential successor's identity is revealed. Without definite plans to leave his job within 18 months, a CIO should keep his candidate's name as secret as possible. Otherwise, things can go awry. First, by naming a candidate too early, "you've basically painted a big target on that poor person's back," McDonald says. When things go wrong, other senior managers "may not go after the CIO who has lots of organizational credibility," he says. Instead, they'll use the proxy as a punching bag.
Second, the longer the CIO stays, the more people will think that his named candidate isn't good enough to take over. Finally, if a candidate has to wait too long, he may get antsy and leave -- or push the CIO to do so.
At the other extreme, it's possible to out a candidate too late. If his name is made public less than a year before the intended takeover, he won't have a chance to build credibility by developing and delivering on a year's worth of IT budget, McDonald says.
Gonzalez struggles with the problem of how to plan for a transition that may not take place for a long time. After all, it will be at least five years until he retires. That may be one reason why he has a dearth of willing candidates.
"How do I find somebody who's going to hang around five, six years until I'm ready to fold it up and move on?" he asks, not exactly rhetorically. "Most of the time, if I find someone, they're expecting to move on in two or three years. They'll wait two or three. But how do you ... groom them and have them hang around five-plus years? I don't have the answer."
At his previous employer, the large manufacturer, Gonzalez was able to keep candidates engaged by rotating them through different jobs. He sent candidates off to run businesses in Europe and Asia. At the much smaller Byer, there are fewer opportunities to keep the challenges fresh.
Until he finds an answer, he has a short-term solution: He's developed relationships with some outside consultants who could take over on an interim basis.
Zanavich faces similar timing challenges. She's been a CIO for 12 years and in IT for a total of 26. "I'm probably approaching retirement at some point in the future," she says. Her three potential successors know that, since she has told them as much during their performance reviews. But she can't tell them when she'll leave.
She tries to keep them engaged by giving them new responsibilities, assigning them to cross-functional teams. Even so, she realizes that they may be ready to make a move before she is.
"Should one of these individuals decide they're not going to wait and they're ready to move on, I think that's absolutely phenomenal," she says -- particularly since there is no guarantee that any of them will actually succeed her.
Zanavich's boss, Jim Torgerson, confirms that the company must keep its options open. "On one hand, you want to develop the people" you have, says Torgerson, who was promoted to chief executive of UIL in July. "On the other hand, you always keep the option of looking elsewhere. You may want to bring external candidates in to get new people with new ideas into the company." If one or more of UIL's potential CIOs do jump ship, Zanavich will find new ones. "You look to make sure that pipeline keeps growing," she says.
Joan Indiana Rigdon was a contributing writer for CIO Decisions. To comment on this story, email editor@ciodecisions.com.
|
