When people planning gets personal - CEO Forum GroupWhen people  planning gets personal
  Grahame Maher - Managing Director - Vodafone  Sweden
                     
              More and more organisations now see culture and values as  important competitive differentiators. Yet, as recently departed  Vodafone Australia's Managing Director (and now Managing Director,  Vodafone Sweden) Grahame Maher  argues, being a  values-based organisation counts for little without a rigorous selection  process, ongoing assessment of culture fit, a strongly differentiated  leadership development program, and a willingness for the CEO to  actively plan their own succession. 
 ceoforum.com.au: How  and why did you go about planning your own succession as CEO? 
       Grahame Maher: To me the  issue of succession was always a key priority, virtually from the time I  took up the role three and a half years ago. I'd always thought you  needed at least three possible successors for maximum flexibility, so as  well as internal candidates, I went looking externally and appointed  this potential successor Chief Operating Officer 18 months ago and he  did, in fact, become my successor. 
   ceoforum.com.au:  Would you encourage other CEOs to plan for their succession from early  on in their appointment? 
       GM: Definitely. It forces  you to think about the longer-term future of the company, not just the  quarter-by-quarter results. It's a very important part of your job, and  if you are not doing it, you are failing the company in that regard. 
       One other thing that I found very useful  prior to moving on from my current role this year was to take a  five-week holiday late last year, during which I was committed to not  getting in contact with the business. The value of this was that it gave  me a chance to get really clear about my own future, so that I could  hand over to my successor without any of the ambiguity you can sometimes  get where the incumbent isn't really sure whether they want to go! That  time away certainly helped me let go of the role, and add real value to  the handover process. 
       ceoforum.com.au:  How does being a values-based organisation affect how Vodafone  approaches people issues generally within the organisation? 
       GM: As a values-based  organisation, the ability to grow our people is really at the core of  what we do. Accordingly, people and leadership development has  implications right across our business. 
                               "You simply can’t find out all you  need to know during selection to always get it right..."
                                                      A good example is how we recruit. We tend to  focus more on talent and values, rather than direct experience as such,  so that means we have a fairly rigorous selection process. Recently, for  instance, we recruited some new people into the executive team. Each  candidate would have been through about 24 hours of face-to-face  interviews, involving up to ten different people. A large part of this  is trying to get a good understanding of whether there is a good culture  and values fit between the candidate and the organisation. Having  multiple people involved also allows you the benefit of all those  different perspectives. 
       Another part of having a strong emphasis on  people development and values is deciding whether people should stay  with, or leave, the company. Based on both on-the-job performance and  values alignment, we are always looking out for people who don't fit the  organisation, and seeing whether they should leave the company. When  there is no fit, a person leaving is, I believe, good for both the  company and the person involved, although it can be a tough decision and  process. If you're serious about values, however, you really need to do  it. At the end of the day, if someone is not aligned with what the  organisation values, then they can never truly perform. 
       ceoforum.com.au:  That type of selection process you describe must be fairly demanding of  resources. How far down the organisation is that rigorous type of  selection process applied? 
       GM: We currently do it for  the top two levels of our organisation, which are the executive and  leadership teams, but hope to extend it further down the organisation.  One thing we looked at in our call centres, for instance, is a kind of  group recruitment process. This is almost a kind of pre-employment  induction program where, say, you invite 100 job candidates to a one- or  two-day program, from which you will then select twenty. Whether and/or  how we would do this, however, is something I will leave the new team  to work on. 
       ceoforum.com.au:  Do you have specific targets for people you want to exit the  organisation, as some companies do? 
       GM: No we don't. Instead,  every time we do appraisals and succession planning, we assess people on  both their values alignment and their performance. As a result, we have  three broad categories: leaders, who are really our high-potential and  performing people; core delivery people, who may not have the same  ability or attainments but are vital for the company's ongoing success,  and those who aren't going to make it, who we really want to leave the  organisation. 
       After the appraisal process, we will sit down  with people and give them their feedback, so they can plan their  careers accordingly. Sometimes, of course, that feedback can be very  direct, such as “Well, we know you wanted to be a senior manager, but we  don't think you can achieve that”, or even “We just don't think you are  right for this organisation, and we need to help you find another place  to go.” 
       ceoforum.com.au:  That's interesting, as a common complaint many employees have about  performance appraisals and development plans is that there isn't that  kind of frankness, and instead it's a bit soft and fluffy! Do you think  there is tendency to avoid these tough discussions when doing these  appraisals? 
                               "We can easily underestimate the  ability for long-term employees to think differently..."
                                                  GM: Yes - you really have to  tell people if they are not right for the organisation – it's essential  if you want to have a strongly values-based organisation. That doesn't  mean being brutal, of course – one of our values is that we have a duty  of care to all our people, so, where it isn't going to work, we have  generous separation policies, long notice periods, make outplacement  services available, and so on. We had an example where we had to close  our call centre in Victoria . We gave all the staff 12 months' notice,  gave them access to outplacement services and redeployed many to other  areas of our organisation. Interestingly, the call centre actually  worked the best it ever had over this last 12 month period. 
       ceoforum.com.au:  How quickly or slowly do you make the call on culture fit? Ideally, of  course, you want to get it right during selection, but presumably this  is not always possible. 
       GM: An old mentor of mine  told me that, if you get selection right two out of three times, you are  doing really well. I agree with this – you simply can't find out all  you need to know during selection to always get it right. It's only when  they actually come into your organisation that you can get a closer  look. 
       My own view is that you can usually make the  call after the first three months of on-the-job performance. Personally,  I've found that, although I can make the assessment after three months,  I tend to put off having any needed tough discussions for a few months  after that! I think the problem is that, having only recently recruited  them, there is a natural inclination to avoid this. I do have a  discipline, however, of making sure I do have any needed discussion  within the first six months of their employment, and I take  responsibility for doing that. Its important I model that behaviour for  the rest of the organisation, so that I am seen to be doing what we say  we do, not just telling other people to do it! 
       ceoforum.com.au:  How important are values relative to performance? For example, do  employees performing well on the job but missing the values present  difficult choices? 
       GM: The split is at least  50% on values, in the sense that missing the values can cost you your  job, even if you are performing well. Dealing with these type of people  is a very important decision for the business. To me it is very clear –  these are the people you have to hunt down and kill! They can be a  cancer in your organisation, as they are often performing at the expense  of everyone around them. It's like a sporting team who has one selfish  ‘superstar', who makes sure he performs even if the team does not! 
       ceoforum.com.au:  How do you go about developing leaders internally? Do you have a  strongly segmented program around the leadership/core delivery  distinction you nominated earlier? 
       GM: Certainly. We segment  our development programs across a range of factors, such as potential,  function, experience and geographical/cultural considerations. This last  one is about keeping a balance between having a global talent pool,  while at the same time recognising that there are advantages in letting  local operations develop their own approaches to leadership. Leadership  in Japan , for instance, may not be the same as leadership in Sweden ,  or leadership in the UK . 
       In all cases you need to be really clear  about what you are trying to achieve with your development programs –  and they aren't always about leadership. In my case, for instance, I'm a  good leader, but a pretty lousy doer, so there are other people who can  do things better than I can. These doers, or core delivery people, have  the same right to development as anyone else. 
       ceoforum.com.au:  How easy do you find it to assess people's leadership potential, even  if they have been working in the company for some time? 
       GM: It's enormously complex.  People can, and do, change, particularly when they are going through  the self-development programs we put them through. One of our key  operational executives is a good example. She's been with the company  17years, and I have known her for 10 of those, and she has really  emerged as a top leader in recent years. This highlights to me that we  can easily underestimate the ability for long-term employees to think  differently. It's easy to leave finance people in finance, sales people  in sales, and so on. If you move people around internally between  functions, you often get great development outcomes. 
       However, that doesn't mean we can change people – I firmly  believe that you can't. Only people can change themselves, and that's  the point of our programs. All you can do as an employer is provide  people with a resource so they can be the best they can be.