Did anyone see the announcement by Warren Buffett before the holidays where he named his son, Howie, as his successor to run Birkshire Hathaway when he dies?

I didn’t think so.  It was low key as is much of of what Warren does.  Somehow the richest man in America tells us who will be running his company and no one really seems to care that it was his son.  Tough choice, though, picking from anyone in the world, the greatest business minds of our generation where lining up for a chance to run one of America’s greatest companies or his son, the soybean farmer from Nebraska.  You see, Succession isn’t as much a science as it’s an art.

Whatever – he choose his son because, as Warren puts it:

Howard, or “Howie,” as he is known in the family, will serve as a “guardian” of the company’s “values”…Buffett said he worried that “somebody will be in charge of Berkshire that uses it as their own sandbox in some way,” and “having Howie there serves as an extra layer of protection.”

Trust.  In the end, the greatest business mind of our generation, and possibly any generation, didn’t make an analytical decision, he made a decision with his heart.  He choose someone he trusted would carry on his vision – not someone who would be out to turn Birkshire into something he or she would want to make it.  Succession is a funny thing that way, when you leave it up to the current person in charge to decide.

This is truly why most HR based succession plans fail to hit the mark.  CEO/Presidents/Owners don’t want competency models and scorecards to determine who will be next in line – they want to use subjective data that we all steer them away from – “who do I trust?”, “who do I feel will carry on my vision?”, “who do I feel will do most like me?”  Your leaders want to ensure that your organization has a great pipeline of talent, some of which is capable of moving up a level or two – but they also want and need to know those individuals on a very personal level.  A level where they have complete confidence in the decision they are making – this usually isn’t a part of our HR succession plans.

Don’t think this is the case as you move down the ladder and you’re just say replacing your next Director of IT – you would be wrong.  It really works at all levels – the next level or two up want to know that when they place someone in a position, they can trust that person won’t make them look like a fool. The only way you make that happen is if the person in the succession plan has a relationship one and two levels up – not a working relationship, but one that is beyond that.

So, go add that to your succession plan and see what happens!  “What? You want me to take Nick our lead developer to dinner, with our spouses!? Are you serious?” Yes, and we’ll even pay for the dinner and drinks.  Then sit back and enjoy.  Is it subjective? Yes.  Does it work? Yes.

A newer sports/coaches book is out and it’s from the NFL coaching guru Bill Belichick called – War Room: The Legacy of Bill Belichick and Art of Building The Perfect Team.  I’m not a huge fan of the New England Patriots or Bill Belichick, but he definitely has created a winning organization over an extended period of time so I was really interested to see what his philosophy was to sustain such a high level or a long period of time.  While the book itself is fairly what you’d expect from a coaching type book – i.e., hire the right people, focus on details, etc., one thing caught me off guard and has extended application to HR and how we build teams in our organizations.

One philosophy Belichick has is that you measure all people, for the position they have by the same matrix.  Sounds basic and straightforward –  right?  But it isn’t – it’s not what we do in HR – we “tweak” it.  Here’s an example – let’s say you have 3 customer service reps, all in the same position, same job description, same pay grade.  Customer Service Rep #1 is a newbie, fresh out of school, no real world work experience. Customer Service Rep #2 is a solid performer with 5 years in position, a rock.  Customer Service Rep #3 is your senior level rep – in position for 15 years, definitely knows the history of where the department has been over the past 15 years, your her 4th supervisor.  You are in position for one year and you’ve been asked by leadership to give a performance assessment of your team of 3 – ranking them 1 to 5 – 5 being the best.  Each rank is independent of the other.

You have high standards and while all are good performers, none of them are great.  Rep #1 (newbie) you give a “3” – for being new in position they are coming up to speed nicely especially being only on for a short period of time.  Rep #2 also gets a “3” – the person is a rock, but to move to the next level they really need to start showing more imitative and informal leadership ability.  Rep #3 also gets a “3” for someone who has been on for so long – they should be far an away the top performer, but they are not – yes, they are better than the majority of Reps across the company in other departments, but you expect more from someone with such tenure.

Sounds familiar – doesn’t it?  Even though all 3 do the same position – we measure them differently based on our expectations of what we think they should bring to the table.  You’ve been told you have to cut two of the individuals from your team – who do you cut.  The majority of HR folks would cut #1 and #2- less seniority, less experience – it’s safe.  Who would Belichick cut?

This is the heart of his philosophy on building a great team – he cuts #1 and #3. Why?  #1 is easy – not enough performance and experience. #3 has been given the opportunity, shown what he can do and has based on performance has shown his “ceiling” for what you can expect.  #2 has similar performance to #3, costs less money, and hasn’t shown that she has reached her ceiling performance level.  If you do this consistently over time with linebackers, defensive backs, offensive lineman, etc. – what you get is great value-to-talent ratio.

So, do you think your organization really measures everyone by position, equally?  Could you build your organization around a Belichick model?  Would your organization be better or worse for it?  All good questions – I tend to think organizations fear really measuring performance because they fear they will always cut the more tenure workers – which isn’t true, but in HR we don’t like all that risk – so we shy away from truly building our teams based on performance.  How many people who went through layoffs over the past 3-4 years really kept their best talent? Not enough, I can tell you that.

Now – people read the title of this and either have one of 3 answeres: Yes, No or Maybe.

If you say “No” – you don’t have Executive Presence.

If you say “Yes” – you probably are working on your Executive Presence.

If you say “Maybe” – you just might have it.

How do I know this?  I’ve had two very strong mentors, both former supervisors, who I worked for a very large organziations that had “Executive Presence”.  Both were men, but I don’t think that is necessarily a trait you have to have to have Executive Presence (although statistics on leadership will show you that it doesn’t hurt – do you hear me Glass Ceiling!?).   Anyway – these two guys had some things in common (besides being male) that gave them Executive Presence –

1. I won’t say “conservative” dress, but let’s say they didn’t stand out – you get the idea navy suit, white button down, clean, crisp, $200-$300 shoes, nice watch.

2. They didn’t speak first – they listened first – took just enough time not to awkward, then responded with a safe answer. Never controversial.

3. They never saw a problem as dire – but methodically went about solving it – staying in control – confident a solution eminent.

4. They never let you know who their emenies were – or really who there friends were either. (why is that important – because it causes both groups to want to find out where they fall – leaving that individual in control)

5. They were present – but never the first one in the room.

I have the belief that Executive Presence can’t be taught.  If you have it, it can be nurtured, but if you don’t, all the training in the world is probably just going to make you annoying.  It’s the standard “Leadership” arguement – you either have it or you don’t – it can’t be taught – unless of course that’s the training you’re selling – than well for $1495 I can teach you how to be a great leader (that always cracks me up – does a true leader really feel the need to pay money to become a better leader?).  Now, can you train someone to be an effective, heck -even a great, manager -yes – but that’s different than being a leader.

How can you gauge if you are a good leader?  Well, I could sell you a great 360 assessment with coaching for $5k! (just kidding, but if you have $5K you want to throw away I’ll give you the best 360 you’ve ever had in your life, I’ll tell you things your soul wouldn’t tell you!) – or you could just find out who you know who is a really good leader, the best one you know, personally – and ask them. You see, good leaders can usually point out other good leaders when they are asked about it.  You’ll catch them off guard, but when they take their minute to think about it (because they’ll do that if they’re good – one is they’ll try and figure out why you are asking them that question)  they’ll frame their answer in a way that will usually open up a larger conversation.  If they value you, they’ll tell you the truth – yep, you are and here’s why or nope you’re not, but here’s what you can do to get better.

Executive Presence matters – it matters a whole lot for your organization – and you can’t discount this trait when looking at your future leaders.  I don’t care if you have Gallups OD department – you aren’t going to “train” executive presense into those who don’t have it.  So, make this competency number one on your succession plan calibration chart – it will make weeding through your middle managers a bit easier.