Evaluación de sustentabilidad del sistema Autoras, 2018

P2: The designation of an executive as heir apparent activates a potential identity

and leads the heir apparent to reflect on the assumptions on which his/her mental models are built vs. those of the representative of the future identity or the incumbent CEO. The heir apparent hence builds his/her own role identity standards, rather than simply adjusting current behaviour or cognition to resolve equivocality.

Practice oriented research on relay succession showed that acquiring the identity of the heir apparent was not enough for the executive to build the identity of a successful CEO (Bennett & Miles, 2006a; Ciampa, 2005; Miles, 2011). Identity researchers found individuals built identity standards for a new position, in this case CEO-D, taking into consideration the expectations of the members of their new social environment and the meanings they assigned to the role (Burke, 2006). To build the new set of standards for the expected CEO position, CEO-Ds may use social learning (Bandura, 1977) and/or direct socialization (Burke & Stets, 2009).

In premise two I tried to explain the process through which CEO-Ds build their new identity and its related standards. As suggested by identity researchers, I used learning theories namely social and transformational learning theories to explain the process. There are two major components included in premise two of my theoretical model. First, I argued CEO-Ds, once aware of their new status as the future CEO, reflect on the necessary standards corresponding to the new identity. Based on social learning theory, I argued they look at the values, beliefs, and behaviours exhibited by the CEO-I as their base case (Bandura, 2001). Second, using learning theory, I hypothesized that rather than simply emulating the standards of the CEO-Is, CEO-Ds undergo a deep thinking process. CEO-Ds evaluate the standards of the CEO-Is. They check whether these standards fit with their overall personality including their other co-existing identities, before building their new identity standards (Mezirow, 2012). In the following paragraphs I present how my fieldwork shows support or lack of it to these sub components of premise two.

Executives, once designated, embarked on the journey to become the CEO. In line with Bandura (2001)’s argument that individuals consider behaviours they believe have functional value relevant to their situation, all the respondents described the CEO-I’s values and behaviours. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the first thing they thought about when designated was whether they could have the same leadership and communication styles as the CEO-Is. Irrespective of whether they liked, respected, trusted, or were on good terms with the CEO-I, they started describing how the CEO-I handled most of these activities. The main activities, they referred to, included their

leadership style, communication style, handling of the outside stakeholders, and running board meetings.

After elaborating on the values, beliefs, and behaviours of the CEO-Is, the next step CEO-Ds took was asking themselves whether they could become like the CEO-Is. To arrive at an answer, CEO-Ds went through a reflective learning process. The most common process among my respondents was a self-dialogue around these standards. They spent a significant amount of time thinking about whether they could or could not adopt the CEO-Is’ standards, including behaviours and communication and leadership styles. This process was intense. They attempted to determine what they would be like as CEOs given their observations of the CEO-Is and the impact of CEO-Is behaviour and attitude on their surroundings. Most of the respondents sought out someone who could serve as a sounding board, not necessarily for direction, but for constructive dialogues. For some of the CEO-Ds, the sounding board was (1) a consultant hired by the board, (2) a mentor they chose themselves (usually a CEO or an ex-CEO from outside the organization), (3) a family member who was or still is a CEO, and (4) for others they went to the CEO-I. Some of the CEO-Ds used only one sounding board; others used a combination of people. Most of the CEO-Ds found value in their discussions with someone who had an experience as a CEO. They believed this person had more understanding of their concerns than those who did not have such an experience.

All respondents went through a self-reflection process. Table 5.2 provides examples of some representative quotations from CEO-Ds describing their thought process and the premises for reflection.

Table 5.2: Representative quotations illustrating the reflection process and some of the premises for building identity standards for the executives’ new CEO identity

CEO-D Thought Process Premises for Reflection

Bill I had many thinking sessions

by myself, nobody helped me through.

I really had no plan when I got into my role, to replace Jeffrey. Because I saw Jeffrey is just an individual that I can never do any dent to, no chance.

It is just the way his leadership style is. I am just not that type of person. I don’t like limelight. I don’t like speaking. I don’t like being at the front of the room. That is just not my style. I have never enjoyed it. It’s tough for me to do. So I just felt that that is not me, I enjoyed being behind the scenes. I enjoyed doing a senior leadership role but not the senior leadership role.

I am not replacing Jeffrey. I can never replace Jeffrey so don’t put me in that position because I’ll fail and if you are actually believing that we are going to tell staff Bill is now replacing Jeffrey, no you are wrong, I am replacing the role of CEO and we need to define that differently. Bill, you have a hard time making decisions. You continue to walk away from stuff. Yeah I know. I am very open about it but that is why I will make sure I have got people beside, me they will push me and we will all make the decisions together so but I did have a lot of discussions with the board about that and the board still fights me on that.

Cheryl I had many debates with

myself, Janet, and my husband

I am never going to be like her (CEO-I) but I actually have different strengths and that was part of what she kept saying to me.

I think she is very sure, when she decides something is right, she is very sure whereas I tend to be, well let me hear what the opposition has to say.

We don’t have the same leadership style at all and even that was in conflict sometimes and so I would say to her I appreciate that. That is who you are, that is not who I am.

Frank I went through a deep soul

searching process.

I had many debates with the consultant.

I am who I am. I lead the way I lead. I am always open to learning. That is one of the things that define me as I love learning; I always have. I am a bit of a closet analytical academic person reading papers all the time. Having said that, I have got to be who I am going to be and I don’t want to get into this under false pretences.

They (the board members) said to me the ex-CEO was known for that, the CEO-I is known for this, what will be your thing? I said, I do not know yet, I need to think about it.

Henry I observed a lot, and I did

workshops at Harvard.

I tend to involve all people in the end decisions and sometimes those clash. I want sort of consensus before we move forward. He (CEO-I) was willing to move forward

CEO-D Thought Process Premises for Reflection

without consensus and sometimes that resulted in a better outcome and sometimes it resulted in a worse outcome. So both styles have their end of pros and cons and there is no perfect one.

If you have got people that are open minded enough to listen at the view points and at the end of the day the buck stops and the CEO is going to make a decision, so I mean he is going to make it with his style or her style. And you need to be comfortable with your own.

John I watched David (CEO-I)

and I could feel the reaction of others to his style.

David (CEO-I) did not like to take direct questions during town hall meetings, he liked to know the questions ahead of time and prepare his answers. I believe people knew that, they always felt that the questions are scripted and inserted. I like to take direct questions, even if they are challenging.

He liked to read and re-read e-mails he was very

concerned with formalities, I am not. I believe I am more concerned about contents.

Margaret I discussed it with myself

which I do a lot.

So when you get a job like that as a CEO, you can actually do whatever you want. If you want to spend 80% of your time outside, you can do that. If you want to spend 80% of your time inside on the floor and doing things, you can do that. You actually design your days exactly, exactly as you want. And, but to me, the role of the CEO, the

fundamental role of the CEO was to make sense between the outside and the inside. You need to talk to the outside to explain everything great that you do and you need to talk to the inside of what is happening outside, the threats and opportunities and your job, because if you don’t do it, not many people will do it in the organization. The way you do this interaction between the outside and inside, it’s yours and Russell did that in a very different way.

Philip I admired Ralph (CEO-I). I

had many discussions with him and with one of our board members.

I learned so much from Ralph. The most important thing I learned is: “don’t change”. So be who you are. Ralph is the same guy he was before. He was a sales guy for 30 years. It is unbelievable. I always told Ralph he doesn’t know he is a CEO because I have worked for other CEOs and they change and Ralph said: ‘look, you are who you are. You are a good leader, you are approachable, and you are a regular person. Just be that person still. Don’t try to be what you think the board wants you to be. Don’t try to be what you think your other stakeholders want you to be. Just be who you are. That is what got you here.’

The fieldwork shows CEO-Ds took time during the transition period and experienced a deep thinking and learning process to reflect upon their identity standards as the future CEO. They started by evaluating the behaviours and leadership styles of the CEO-Is. They compared these behaviours with their own understanding of what the job was as well as their current standards. They thought about which standards to internalize and which ones do not align with their own beliefs and values and standards of their other identities. To help them through the process, most of the CEO-Ds turned to other people as sounding boards to help them determine these standards. What is evident from the interviews is that they did not try to blindly adopt or emulate the identity standards of the CEO-I.