Picking a Successor: The Final Test for Leaders

The suspense was resolved on November 27, 2000. After six years of selection and three "gold" candidates for 18 months, Jack Welch selected 44-year-old Jeffrey R. Immelt as GM's next chairman and chief executive.

The secret was strictly kept and then dealt with in a typical Jack Welch hyperbole. Immediately after Welch and his committee made a decision, the CEO recalled Immelt, who was on vacation in South Carolina, and boarded a company jet to personally inform the other two candidates that they had not been accepted. hired. In a press conference a few days later, when the news was announced, Welch emphasized the careful planning and careful placement of his successor, saying proudly: "We decided six years ago to The results were announced in December 2000." He was only two weeks behind this long-established schedule.

Similarly, after Welch's announcement, he also embarked on the bumpy road that has brought many leaders down in the past, and will certainly do the same in the future, which is to hand over leadership to an heir. Prepare.

For GE, this transition phase has been doubly difficult. In its more than a century of operation, it has had fewer than 12 leaders in total. In American business, some of these pioneers are revered by historians as giants. We can sum up the phenomenon this way: Leaders who have held important positions and are now leaving office are often described as American icons—their plans and prophecies are eagerly copied by their loyal admirers.

Over the 20 years that Welch was CEO, GE's operating performance has been steady and rising, even though the economic downturn interspersed with it. Before Welch left office, rumors abounded that the laws of gravity would come into play once Welch's steadfast and powerful will ceased to exist at GE. The company's various businesses -- from broadcast television to financial services -- would collapse quickly.

Recently, there have been mixed results regarding the transition of old and new to American companies. Analysts will be quick to cite examples: Gillette, Xerox, and Procter & Gamble are examples of bumpy transitions.

The neglected issue of succession

In fact, although the succession process can affect the interests of many parties - for example, the current leader, the newly promoted rookie, the property of the entire company, the vested interests of the company, etc. However, little attention has been paid to this handover process; companies often hurriedly supplement and amend the succession process after it has been announced to the outside world. This phenomenon also occurs in political systems, nonprofit organizations, small businesses and households, and even American society in general.

Some human factors can explain this phenomenon.

Who wants to think about the inevitable moment of departure? Paving the way for successors means that we are not immortal, power is fleeting, and companies, organizations and lives don't stop because of us. Leaders without prestige sometimes fail to provide future successors with the necessary training and knowledge to enhance their sense of independence, or simply choose weaker subordinates who will not pose a threat to them, thereby highlighting their talents . Surrounded by strong, creative people, one or a few of whom are potential replacements, insecure bosses feel at risk.

In some cases, there is a high risk that leaders in power will not trust and appreciate those who expect to be promoted. These people are reluctant to keep suppressing them, and even more reluctant to recommend them, but want them to go to other companies. Maybe a second candidate will be chosen, mostly for other reasons than personal ability.

A more plausible explanation for the lack of attention to succession planning by those in power is that, in theory, they must avoid it. Otherwise, it will be seen as arrogant and self-centered. The quest for fairness, avoiding mistakes by overly fond of subordinates, and a desire to breathe new life into the company have led many leaders to the conclusion that they should leave succession issues to others. Others worry that sparking competition among several top leaders could create power struggles and internal infighting that could undermine a company's operating performance. And some talented subordinates are often personal friends of the leader himself, and the leader is not willing to let him down, just as Welch had to do, emotionally, select a successor from several excellent subordinates It is very difficult to choose.

The selection of the vice president of the United States provides an interesting perspective on the issue of CEO succession. In the early days of the republic, contenders for the top prize often ended up in second place. The president has no reason to trust his vice president. There is little or no common action between them. There is no incentive for the president to suppress or promote him as his successor.

Many years have passed, the power of political parties has gradually increased, and regional differences have become increasingly prominent. After a vice-presidential candidate is selected, he or she needs to pledge allegiance to the party he belongs to in subsequent elections, or provide regional balance for the election. During the second half of the 20th century, some other standards began to take shape. Sometimes defeated major opponents were chosen to form partisan coalitions—such as John F. Kennedy's appointment of Lyndon Johnson as vice president in 1960, and Reagan's appointment of George Bush as vice president in 1980. Others were chosen to give them symbolic roles in important constituencies, such as the appointment of Geraldine Ferraro by Walter Mondale in 1984.

None of these factors guarantees the establishment of a strong vice-presidential position, and the person occupying this position must be closely aligned with the work of the president and, if necessary, adequately prepared to Qualified to take over the presidency - but the opposite is true. The advent of modern warfare, high-speed communications, and nuclear weapons has not changed the basics of being vice president. Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Spiro Agnew, for example, found themselves completely ignorant of politics and even ostracized by Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Nixon and their aides.

No wonder one of Roosevelt's vice presidents, John Nance Garner, contemptuously described his work as "spittle and worthless."

Thankfully, in recent times, the inaugural White House has taken a more serious and cooperative approach to key second-in-command. The close collaboration and mutual trust between Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale have significantly improved the relationship between the two positions.

Some of their successors took this relationship further. Bill Clinton broke with tradition and picked Al Gore as his running mate, not because he and Gore were different, but because of their similarities: the two men were similar in age, grew up in the same area, and had something in common. political beliefs. Gore was a trusted advisor who had taken on important projects, making him a favorite to succeed President Clinton and his staff. George Bush laid out his plans for the selection of the vice president very carefully. He hired Dick Cheney from Wyoming, a senior official who had worked and lived in Washington, but never considered running for president.

Politics may have learned some lessons from business - but when it comes to succession, business still has a long way to go. Many small home-based businesses last only one generation, and the reason is that owners don't pay due attention to inheritance and estate planning. Many larger organizations have contingency plans in place to deal with occasional crisis events. They know who should be in charge if their boss's private plane goes down; yet, they spend little time planning for the long-term—planning for the day that is ultimately inevitable, when the baton is handed over.

Creating a Talent Pool

Ultimately, the more a company trusts people and invests in developing leadership talent, the more the size of future successors will change proportionally. General Electric, led by Jack Welch, has done this far more than any other company. He spends a lot of time, energy, and money to develop the talents of employees and turn managers into business leaders. This underscores Welch's most fundamental leadership philosophy: to give top-level privileges to a true leader is to build other leaders.

Gerry Roach, the head of a major executive search firm, told Newsweek: "Our business is booming because the board and top managers don't pay enough attention to finding talent." Not doing what should be done, he believes. Things, not finding talent, is one of the biggest mistakes companies make. Roach believes: “Many good companies are obsessed with quantitative, financial, and rational analysis without considering more resilient aspects such as leader characteristics, sensitivities, thoughtfulness, empowerment, and talent shaping. The hardest part, they put so little into it and so little in business training."

Welch is a different story, as he spends most of his time researching the backgrounds of the people he wants to promote , instead of spending all your time studying statistics. In fact, GE is known for having a large pool of management talent and experienced managers. These men successfully ran other companies, such as Conscore and Owens Corning.

Welch's talent development initiatives determine the results and quality of GM's successor search, such as successful investments, an understanding of the importance of succession, a belief in intense competition, and a commitment to GM's culture and the promise of value. He carefully designed a decision that took years to make, and the process was comprehensive, orderly, and competitive; moreover, he selected candidates within the company, using age and seniority as a measure of leader quality. standard. These contenders have a chance to start taking over huge sums of money, likely making more than the eventual winner, Immelt, at least initially. So, everyone wins.

Shortly after announcing Immelt's election as new chairman and CEO, management expert Warren Bennis commented: "In many ways, among the companies I can think of, Welch The work done with his committee is probably the most comprehensive, thorough, and long-term plan." Indeed, while Welch changed the style and tactics of his predecessor Reggie Jones in many ways, when the transition When the transition period came, Welch had clearly learned many lessons from his previous boss.

Welch's boss, Jones, made the final decision when only three strong candidates remained, as did Welch. Jones selected candidates from within the company and selected a person who devoted his life to General Motors, who was down-to-earth and achieved excellent business performance. Welch did so without exception. Jones picked a youthful, 45-year-old candidate with leadership qualities that would stand the test of time, as did Welch.

Jeffrey Immelt, who all worked for General Motors, met his wife at the plastics company and his father was a manager at General Motors. After earning a bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College (where he was a football star) and an MBA from Harvard, Immelt found himself in the chaotic corporate culture of General Plastics, which Always been called "my favorite" by Welch.

During his two terms at the plastics company, Immelt rose through the ranks and then emerged from a tough competition at General Electric Home Appliances, where he had to deal with the cancellation of a large number of product orders. In 1997, he was already seen as a Welch insider before becoming CEO of GE Healthcare. His success in turning the medical system business around made him and two colleagues—W. James McNerney, who ran General Electric's aircraft engines, and Robert L. Nardelli, the head of the power company— - Instant fame.

Like Welch, Immelt is competitive and confident. "I'm not worried about my leadership," he said at the news conference. And the GE audience couldn't help laughing: at the news conference, the two men appeared to reporters in the same attire. In front - no ties, all wearing the same blue shirts, navy blue jackets, and fringed loafers, hence the nickname "Jack and Little Jack". Although the incident was made a joke by GE employees, the styles of the two were very different. Immelt, who is 6 feet 4 inches (about 1.9 meters) tall, is much taller than Welch, who is 5 feet 8 inches (about 1.7 meters), Welch's husky voice and concise and powerful words are mixed with obvious newness. With an English accent and occasional stutter, Immelt's voice is elegant, calm and smooth.

Style and intonation are very important to leaders—just as the same lyric with a different melody can sound like two very different poems when adapted. At Immelt's inaugural press conference, it was hard to find a substantial difference other than the obvious difference in the two voices. Immelt has emphasized on several occasions that the customer comes first—a characteristic that his previous work was known for. Does this fact mean that he believes there is still room for improvement in GE's work today. At GE, customers are important, and shareholders are king. We will wait and see.

We're still waiting, as the handover process doesn't end with the company's selection results, and there's a transition period (originally set to 6 months, but extended to allow Welch to handle the results) his dream merger with Honeywell). During this time, Immelt, as president and chairman of the board, will gradually take over the company's affairs under the direction of Welch and two corporate overseers and vice chairmen, Robert C. White and Dennis D. Dammerman. This transition period is a continuation of the sweeping changes that Welch had orchestrated.

There is no doubt that the two losers of the competition, Nardelli and McNerney, who now run Home Depot and 3M respectively, will leave GE. This fact provides further evidence of Welch's ability to develop other leaders.

Key leadership skills: Picking a successor

Welch announced he was leaving GE after retiring on September 7, 2001, but decided to stay for a few more months to deal with Honeywell's Merge problem. Observers and some friends have come to the conclusion that it is too difficult for the current GE boss to leave.

Welch appeared very emotional during the interview. He vehemently denied the claims. "Do you think it's fair to force a guy into a whole new job? That's irresponsible," he told the Wall Street Journal by delaying his retirement to address Honeywell's problems. Postponing isn't a one-time thing for me." Before the Honeywell deal was announced, he said: "I'm not a hang-on guy, it's not about me — an aging CEO clinging to the throne. If anyone wants to write this stuff, I'll punish him hard."

Over the next few years, Welch and Immelt will be compared on various occasions , one of which is the criterion by which the other is judged. Ultimately, what people say about Welch will be shaped by Immelt's work performance. Employees, investors, business partners and the media will scrutinize the consequences of every Immelt decision, action and statement.

Which decision did Welch support? Are there any negative decisions? How did Jack take a different view? How does he do it? Aside from the polite compliments, we hope Welch will have some thoughts on his successor's moves. What is Jack's true thoughts?

Compared to business, politics is more of a manipulative world. At the time of the presidential handover, when another party takes over the White House, we expect new leadership to redefine the world after January 20: everything that has happened in the past has been bad, everything that has happened since has been great . That's why most presidents try desperately to make sure that a confidant in their party can take his place. In addition to relying on him to continue implementing his favored policies, he can help cement your legacy. It is critical to have a successor who appreciates and praises your accomplishments rather than attacking and slandering them. Leaders of businesses and other organizations concerned with their achievements, policies, and legacy should take these factors into account when choosing their successors.

However, when the transition of presidential power takes place, we will still see successors trying to show themselves and expose the shortcomings of their predecessors. In this case, George Bush became a gentler, kinder figure than Ronald Reagan, and Al Gore promised the nation that he would continue the popular policies of Bill Clinton, and Do these things honestly.

Like Welch, Immelt needs to follow advice. He'll draw from GE's culture and values, and hear from old-timers, but ultimately develop his own course of action—one that fits the company in the 21st century, not the 1980s or 1990s. He's not going to be Jack Welch Jr., he's going to be himself.

Of course, it's easier for a new leader to take over a bad company and implement remedies than it is to replace an old leader who is admired by thousands of people. In the first case, employees expect big changes, but the expectations are low, and any improvement is revered as the work of management genius. All the groups and supporters who follow Immelt are hoping: that he can keep things going. And some schadenfreude was waiting to see when he screwed things up.

This is the cruelest thing we can imagine - basically the same difficulties Welch faced 20 years ago. If Jeff Immelt had inherited Welch's steely will, he would have passed the test.

Jack Welch's approach to succession development has also been an asset to other leaders as he cultivates a group of successors, handing the baton carefully and methodically to the hands of the most competent candidate. Only arrogant and short-sighted leaders will believe that they are indispensable and irreplaceable; only selfish, insecure leaders will gather a group of weak and incompetent subordinates around them to set off their greatness. At the same time, information and power are always held carefully; only uncaring, unprincipled leaders push aside the training of leaders and the search for successors, "who cares what happens when I die." These leaders don't even understand that self-interest should be considered - it's far better to have someone who appreciates you and works hard to achieve your cause than someone who despises and undermines your results.

For those who are fully committed to an organization, a cause, or a company, the lesson is clear - true leaders should develop other leaders. If they are committed to their life's work, they will bravely face their replacement and take steps to ensure that their values and achievements are passed on to future generations. Instead of cloning, fostering puppets and pretenders, they develop leaders with courage, judgment, and integrity to lead the company into a better future.

As a leader, if you try to keep your current position all day long, worship people instead of cultivating successors; or keep secrets, hinder the development of potential leaders, and have a good understanding of your career and location. companies are extremely harmful. In the end, even your hard-earned achievements will be forgotten.

Do you want your results to last forever, or just be a flash in the pan? Jack Welch chose the former because of his commitment to developing a successor. It is because of this commitment that he confidently predicts that choosing Jeff Immelt as his successor was "the cruelest decision he has ever made in his life", but also "the best I have thought of in the past 20 years." idea".

This article is authorized by CITIC Publishing House and is excerpted from the book Welch's Leadership Art by James W. Robinson, which was translated and published by the agency in May 2004.

Picking a Successor: The Final Test for Leaders

Free Alerts on newly added products!