The dynamics of contemporary corporate management is increasingly becoming more akin to crisis management than purposive stewardship. That is, CEO succession is now perceived to be more commoditized, and Kurana (2003) showed that such a process has its consequences and tradeoffs. Nonetheless, there is also a clear gap regarding the acceptability and efficacy of hiring external CEOs than employing internal candidates. Strategic alignment is evidently a blurring endeavour in the corporate setting as well as the process of mitigating transition risks which will directly and indirectly affect not just employees and relevant stakeholders but also the society in general in which the business operates. In reality, however, CEO succession planning is turning out to be an isolated and stand-alone exercise without realizing the consequences it may impose.


For modern corporate governance, external CEO succession compels as a solution despite the fact that ownership of the internal processes and conspicuous support could not materialized in their expected manner. What is hard to digest in all of the things happening today about CEO succession is the reverberation of the process itself and at the expense of the senior management. For instance, the case of Jamie Dimon who placed John McCoy. The question now is if Dimon’s performance would not proved to be sufficient, what will happen next? Naturally, Bank One would again resort to pooling and choosing external talents rather than to cultivate internal potential, equal candidates. For senior managers, it is like undergoing the process of being measured up to others, with the respect to the capacity to salvage the struggling company.


How will CEO succession planning will affect people? Virtually all of the people inside any company are responsible in the direction of their organisation. External succession planning is not the only which is being questioned today, but also the logicality behind it and the accountability of the people who employed CEOs, which is the board. CEO succession is a shared responsibility, and the future or the likelihood of salvation of the company lies not in a single hand. With that said, the priority of having a sound and effective CEO succession scheme could not be underestimated because the criticality of the role of the CEO and the fact that it cuts across several groups of stakeholders is vital in the success of the organisation (Gupta, 2006).


 


Reference:


 


Gupta, Vinita. 2006. Complexities of CEO Succession Planning.  


 


Kurana, Rakesh. 2003. Searching for a Corporate Savior – The Irrational Quest for Charismatic CEOs. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.


 


 


Word Count: 331


 


 


 


 



Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com


0 comments:

Post a Comment

 
Top