Leadership

Governance

Succession – When is the best time to let go

Its hard to let go when you have grown an organisation, be it a business or a charity with personal sacrifice, commitment and / or investment Sometimes this question leads to breakdown of relationships, disagreements and even legal fights or regulatory action. Humans are mere mortals, and this question always hangs over every Leader, Founder and Owner. This question can be answered in many ways successfully and sometimes unfortunately by force. In my professional capacity, I have worked to answer this question in the business and charity sectors. My starting position has always been to question and understand the motive of the question as the answers lies therein. Succession should be about success of the business or charity Succession must always lead to success – this is when it becomes utmost important to define what that “success” actually looks like. Does success mean becoming a bigger business or profitable one? Is it about becoming a larger charity or better governed one? Is it about changing the way the organisation is run or just about retiring and passing the mantle? In defining the parameters of success, the timing matters as it focuses the minds and rewards. When the question of “succession” is considered without working out the question of “success”, it risks leading to the wrong answer. Not all business successes require successions. And if not careful, unnecessary successions can lead to disasters and failures due to losing history, commitment, and profile of the leader internally and externally. Artificial term times don’t always work, especially when copy / pasted from other organisations. What success looks like may even require other solutions other than succession. For example, advisors / new positions under the leader, more delegation or just good and better business planning or resources. However, when the succession discussion is underpinned by the need of a clearly identifiable success then difficult discussions become easier to digest and problems turn the mind to “win-win” solutions. Succession planning becomes meaningful and desirable. Good strong successors don’t grow on trees In a family business or a family / friend run charity, the perceptions of control can dominate the succession discussion over the need for real organisational success. Not all seats on the board table mean control – the wrong successor can compromise success – without the real success, control means nothing. However once succession is on the cards, finding the right successor can become an impossible task. The identified success parameters should determine the type of successor required – Leaders don’t grow on trees and may not be just plucked out of thin air. Promoting an amateur and / or choosing an untried hand can be a risky affair – this is why a timely succession planning is always a cornerstone of good governance. Below are some examples of how succession planning works in good governed organisations: Delegation nourishes leadership. This can be achieved in a controlled and a phased manner. The delegation matrix should be meaningful and there should be succession planning thought behind it – This should not just be a HR tool to use when things go wrong. Input leads to outputs. Every great leader started from a junior position and worked their way up. Never underestimate a good effective recruitment strategy at junior grades. These are the stones that can be carved into eye-catching statues of tomorrow. Graduate recruitment of great corporates is designed with this in mind. Mentoring should not be accidently achieved – it should be planned. This is a fruit that can be produced through an effective HR function and through good performance management protocols. Effective leaders budget their time for mentoring – these are the seeds that can grow into the trees of tomorrow. Nepotism can be costly. It comes at the cost of achieving real success. It suppresses real leadership and opportunity. Organisations that keep nepotism in check make succession planning work effectively. These are the organisations that are designed to succeed in their organisational objectives. Those that don’t, lose in the long run. End – Author: Nasir Rafiq BA FCA is a widely experienced Finance Professional and Governance Expert. He works with organisations of all sizes and complexities. Nasir is the Founder Director of Dua Governance Chartered Accountants and Business Advisors. A firm that specialises on governance advisory services to the charity sector.

Governance

Leadership – a fashionable term often a misunderstood concept

In recent times, I had a taste of leadership where I led and directed large teams in challenging circumstances. Before this and in my professional capacity, I always critically analysed others on their leadership and this time having to implement what I had preached was a surreal experience. This experience not only confirmed many of my perceptions, but it also gave me new insights on real life challenges often ignored by external consultants. Leadership is a misunderstood concept and there is no size or style that fits all. Circumstances, underlying issues and the character of those that are being led, all together dictate the style of leadership required. My view has always been that leadership is all and only about achieving organisational objectives and strategy. If this does not happen then there is no leadership, it is just mere representation and title. A good leader will have an idea, end goal, strategy. This can only come with relevant knowledge and experience. Leadership is about making those that are led, believe in this idea and vision. They all then work together towards that goal. Performance, priority, and consultation is based on this. Firm and difficult decisions are made in this context. Patience and consistency are required from the leader despite the odds and resistance. Another effective attribute of a leader is identifying own weaknesses and limitations. This again should be in the context of the end goal and vision. Once the weakness is recognised, only then the leader can do something about it. Leaders that fail to recognise their own weakness and its potential in holding back the end goal are not strong leaders no matter how much they pretend they are. Those that profess that they lead but lack a vision and idea of their own, just enjoy the limelight and respect of the title. Defending their own image becomes a big issue and when they lose the title, it is devastating to them. They are not leaders; they just represent those they lead and merely ride on their success until they can. Success and downfall of organisations can depend on who leads them. You can have the best team and resources; a bad leader will make a mess out if it. On the other hand, a good leader can make success out of weak teams with little resource. This is why, for those charged with governance, the biggest test of their ability is on how they choose their leader. When organisations choose leaders based on who best can represent them because of culture, friendship or nepotism rather than who is the best for achieving the end goal, vision and strategy then don’t blame the leader when it all goes to pot. In such organisations, it is often found that issues are not resolved, difficult decision are not taken, risk is not managed, the organisation does not become stronger, goals and strategy are not clear or achieved, staff are not developed and a vacuum is left when the chosen one leaves.

Scroll to Top
Type & Search