Over the past three-and-a-half years, an average of three executives have left technology companies in the United States each week. Challenging, gray and Christmas. They think that technology companies need to be an example of how to prepare for leadership transitions, working in such a steady flow.
They are far away from him.
Change of command is one of the most sensitive moments in the life cycle of any organization. If handled incorrectly, the transition from one CEO to another will result in a loss of market value, speed and focus, as well as a loss of key employees, customers and partners. That may even be the turning point when an organization begins to slide into relevance.
With so much at stake, 84% of technology executives agree that a consistent plan is more important than ever in today’s fast-paced business environment, according to a new survey of corporate leaders in the United States. Of the 10 survey respondents, seven technology companies agreed that they would be tested more than in many other countries during the transition period.
Today, 84% of technology executives agree that consistent planning is more important than ever in today’s fast-paced business environment.
However, we technology executives, like their peers in other sectors, appear unprepared for C-group transitions. Three out of five respondents said their companies did not have a documented plan to handle the change of leadership, although at the same ratio, they recognized that it was the biggest indicator in document transfer.
These respondents, the founders of the millennium, may not have been worried about the findings for years after they left their companies. The executives we have selected come from 160 companies that have been in business for at least 15 years – 35 technology companies, the largest industry group in the study.
The smallest companies have at least 1,500 employees and $ 500 million a year, while the largest have more than $ 500,000 and more than $ 100 billion. They have reached the point where disaster management and crisis planning (understanding), including what would happen if their leaders fall victim to the symbolic milk truck – are in place.
Tech executives need to be more specific about the successor plan for one important reason – institutional memory. Technical companies are generally smaller than other companies of the same size, which is partly due to the fact that S&P 500 companies are expected to grow in 2018 by 85 years.
These enterprises have accomplished much in their short lives, but in spite of their longevity in many other sectors, most of them have not made history. Fewer than half of these technology companies have, in fact, reported on the history of their leaders for generations. When newcomers are forced to join their C-groups, that puts them at risk.
It is good to record this story well before the transition begins. Essentially, it helps future and future generations of leaders understand the track record, lessons learned, culture and identity. It also explains why the organization has improved, what unites people, and what can provoke opposition based on past experience. It is like looking back and moving forward.
Most executives in our selection will find it, 85% of the history of a company can be a playbook for new executives to learn and prepare for future challenges and opportunities. “History is the mother of innovation for any company,” said one respondent. Another story involves “history” to the end of failures and successes.
But this is not a documentary history of chief executive hajj. Expenditure executives often spend the last few years building their own trophies in the office. Although acknowledging their own flat footing in the transition plan, most executives said they had taken steps to create and strengthen their personal heritage: two-thirds said they had completed their own formal heritage plan, many with their blessing boards.
Thus, three out of five of the legacy of an executive or founder often cover a set of skills and describe the experience of a successor. Two-thirds of technology executives believed that the longer a leader remained in power, the more complicated the transition.
Technology leaders can and should do this right. When asked which of the five big-name CEO executives were the most successful, Apple’s No. 1 hand went from Steve Jobs to Tim Cook (38%), followed by Microsoft’s Steve Bolmer to Satya Nadela (28%). The others received less than 13% of the votes cast by General Electric, General Motors and Goldman Sachs.
In this survey, it may be inconsistent with Apple’s advice to develop a new CEO and consolidate the company’s history and pass it on to the next CEO. Jobs, after all, diligently managed the inheritance to the end. But as he continues to provide a middle ground, he also affirmed Apple’s institutional knowledge and ethics to cook on Apple’s floor in 13 years.
Sooner or later, everyone in the C-Suite today, including the founders, will get up. For those who are leaving, they should start preparing for that day now.