from your customers and the people who most directly interact with them?
C: Communication. How does the candidate communicate and evangelize the mission, purpose, and strategies of the enterprise? Does he inspire, build engagement, and facilitate problem solving? Is he able to articulate in verbal, written, and non-verbal ways?
E: Emotional Intelligence. Does the candidate exude humble confidence, awareness of others and herself, sincere empathy and kindness, and optimism?
R: Responsibility. Does he readily take ownership for the challenges of leadership? Is he adept at sharing his load without dumping it on others? Does he learn from his mistakes and the mistakes of others without resorting to blaming? Does he recognize that “the buck stops with him?” Does he have a clear sense of the challenges he will face in the top job?
It is important that the current leader, CEO, owner, or founder assess not only each candidate’s performance to date, but also their potential to grow into leadership. Failure to evaluate both performance and potential may result in the elimination of viable candidates.
A frank and honest assessment of each candidate against the PACER template will provide a baseline for consideration of each successor to lead your enterprise to–and through transition. The use of this model is best pursued in a careful and deliberate manner, often with the facilitation of an objective coach from outside your company.
Ultimately, as you zero in on both performance and potential, your assessment should be shared with each viable candidate. This will provide the basis for a plan to bridge any gaps between potential and performance. That plan should then be vigorously implemented.
Ideally, the process of developing one’s successor should not be left as a “last minute” process. You should start early; allowing at least two to three years if possible.
Finally, avoid what I call the “heir apparent” syndrome. Strive to get more than one prospective candidate into your successor pipeline. This competitive aspect tends to make each candidate more focused on bridging the gap between their potential and performance, and it reduces the risk that your only candidate may leave–or die!