During the past few months, I’ve been reading Leading Organizations: Ten Timeless Truths by Scott Keller and Mary Meaney, Senior Partners at McKinsey. It’s a compelling book that explores the key challenges organizational leaders face, accompanied by evidence-based strategies to overcome them. One quote from Keller stands out: “At this point in time, managers and leaders are swamped with information that is not very helpful. In many ways, there is information they should choose not to remember versus information they should choose to remember.”
This observation raises a critical question: Do leaders really need advice or mentoring when they’re already well-read, experienced, and experts in their fields? On the surface, it might seem like they don’t. Yet, despite their knowledge and experience, many leaders still struggle, with some even failing spectacularly in their roles. Research from various prestigious institutions confirms this paradox. So, if they already possess the necessary skills and knowledge, why aren’t they consistently successful?
One key reason for this inconsistency is the lack of a formal, structured process for leadership development. Often, leaders are handpicked through succession planning, given access to senior leadership and board members via executive meetings or one-on-one discussions. These interactions serve as informal assessments, allowing senior leaders to validate their choices. Eventually, a decision is made, and the new leader is announced.
In other cases, executive committees conduct extensive searches, holding numerous interviews with potential candidates. Once top contenders are identified, they too follow similar informal processes. In family businesses, the criteria may be even simpler, but the essence remains the same.
Despite the long-standing and widely adopted nature of these practices, a vital question remains: What is the missing link? Leadership mentoring is often suggested as a solution. While mentorship offers great value by imparting wisdom from experienced leaders, it comes with its own set of challenges.
First, mentors often guide new CEOs based on their own experiences and past successes. While this foundation can be valuable, it can also tether the new leader to established ways of thinking. An exceptional mentor may create space for the CEO to challenge norms and bring fresh ideas, but the subtle influence of the mentor’s legacy is hard to escape. The new leader may feel pressure to conform to the old mold.
Secondly, a mentor’s influence might hinder innovation. Instead of fostering groundbreaking strategic visions, the new leader may feel inclined to repurpose old ideas with minor adjustments, limiting their potential. This ties back to Keller’s idea of “choosing the right information” — mentors may inadvertently encourage the retention of outdated practices.
Another inherent issue is with succession planning itself. Many boards delay the process until it’s too late. Sometimes this happens because the incumbent CEO is uncomfortable with early planning, or it can result in the loss of senior management candidates who had their own leadership ambitions.
A fourth common issue is the lack of an effective handover. When a CEO retires without a clear handover process, the new leader is left to manage without crucial guidance. Alternatively, if the former CEO remains on the board, their continued presence might prolong the influence of past leadership, subtly steering the organization in old directions.
None of this is to suggest that these strategies are entirely wrong. In many cases, successful organizations find ways to navigate these issues effectively. However, there is room for improvement in how such transitions are managed. Over the past 20 years, Executive and Leadership Coaching has emerged as a highly effective resource for leaders. Numerous studies demonstrate the exponential benefits that coaching provides to both leaders and organizations.
Coaching allows leaders to better understand their own leadership styles and areas for improvement. It offers a safe space to discuss challenges and fears while also enabling leaders to sift through information to focus on what’s most relevant. Boards, in turn, gain leaders who are more equipped and prepared for their roles. Due to its sustained nature over several months, coaching produces tangible, measurable benefits that enhance leadership readiness.
Will coaching solve all these problems? Not entirely. But it will certainly ensure that both leaders and organizations are better prepared to tackle them and iron out the creases more efficiently than current methods allow.