IN THE TENT OR OUT

In The Tent Or Out
Barack has appointed Hillary (and Bill) as Secretary Of State. This has prompted much fury amongst some of his supporters who had hoped for a clean break and genuine change, as promised, by Barack on the stump.
It prompted thoughts and questions about whether former rivals for the top job in a country or a company can ever work successfully together.
Mrs Thatcher dealt decisively and contemptuously for a time with her rivals, in dismissing them as ' wets '. It came back to haunt her with Michael Heseltine’s resignation and the leadership election which followed, they queued up to tell her that she lacked support of her colleagues and hence could not continue.
Three examples from succession at great companies do prompt some lessons. Recently the succession at GSK has passed from JP Garnier to Andrew Witty. His two rivals in spite of being offered (as reported) inducements of millions and seats on the GSK board did not stay and found themselves eventually, lucrative situations in rival companies or outside.
Similarly the newly appointed chief executive of Nestlé saw one of his rivals emerge as the chief executive of Unilever (the first chief executive from the outside for 78 years).
Probably the most well documented and widely praised Chief Executive succession of recent times was that of the legendary Jack Welch at GE. Welch claims to have contemplated and planned for his successor for 10 years. The three main rivals each had deputies appointed so that's when the eventual successor was chosen that there would be in turn succession to those posts. Jeff Immelt eventually emerged as the anointed one whereupon his two rivals promptly left.
Whilst this does deliver substantial corporate head room and in some senses frees up the remainder of the organisation for others. It is surely wasteful of talent at the very top or the company.
The question therefore is given that these individuals are ' in it to win it ' whether they can ever stick around and work successfully with the victor in a succession plan which is inevitably a bruising encounter for the ego as well as the ambition.
Which makes Hillary is decision to accept and Barack's decision to invite her, all the more surprising. There are probably two factors at work here:
First at the top of the American political system there is simply no other place to go once the top job has been secured. There is no equivalent of a fortune 500 company waiting in the wings to snap up more talent.
Secondly and this is unique perhaps to Hillary's situation and to Barack’s dilemma. Hillary comes with Bill. This provides access to a successful and admired former president full of potential to add a dimension of experience, thinking and imagination in delivering Barack's vision.
Is there a way therefore of harnessing the vanquished rivals in the business situation. The two for the price of one situation described above in Hillary’s appointment very rarely arises in business. The opportunity to deliver a rivals overall vision from within a company is necessarily limited given the ambition, independence and desire for autonomy which has driven all the rivals to the very near the top.
The conclusion therefore must be that the classic succession planning principle of having successors in the wings not just for the top jobs but for those immediately below the top must apply. GE’s approach would seem pragmatic whilst GSK’s in retrospect although no doubt well-intentioned, well engineered and well thought through, founders on the ambition and sheer ‘testicular fortitude’ (as Barack memorably described one of Hillary’s qualities) of the candidates nearing the top all large organisations.