Onboarding externally hired

O

nboarding externally hired

executives: Avoiding derailment –

accelerating contribution

G

UANGRONG

D

AI

, K

ENNETH

P D

E

M

EUSEAND

D

EE

G

AEDDERT

Korn/Ferry Leadership & Talent Consulting, Los Angeles, CA, USA

A B S T R A C T

Executive onboarding has become a popular technique in the business world during the past decade. However, the demonstrated success of traditional onboarding practices is mixed. We assert in this article that executive onboarding should be strategic, so that it not only prevents executive derail-ment, but accelerates contribution to optimize strategic achievement. We review the literature and identify six problematic areas externally hired executives often encounter when transitioning in to new organizations. It is recommended that effective onboarding should be tailored to the targeted organizations and executives to address specifi c transition issues. We propose a conceptual framework to implement onboarding on a strategic basis. It is hoped that such a review and conceptual discus-sion will enhance the effectiveness of onboarding experiences and increase the likelihood of success for executives hired from outside the organization.

Keywords: onboarding, management transition, leadership development, coaching, strategic HR, executive derailment

I

NTRODUCTION

T

he updating of leadership competencies and the broadening of leadership experiences – particularly at the senior executive level – has become a key strategy for many organizations as they attempt to adapt to the uncertain business environment (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1996; Olson, van Bever, & Verry, 2008). Increasingly, companies are looking outside their organization for fresh leadership to keep globally competitive (BusinessWeek, 1993; Sessa & Taylor, 2000). It has been estimated that more than one-third of the Fortune 1000 Companies are led by CEOs who were recruited externally (cited in Charan, 2005). Among the 136 CEOs replaced dur-ing 2008 in the Standards and Poor’s Index

representing nearly 1300 fi rms, 28% were hired from outside the company (Tuna, 2008). In fact, Sessa and Taylor (2000) observed a grow-ing favoritism toward outside executives. Their research found that when selection committees are open to considering both internal and exter-nal candidates, an exterexter-nal candidate is chosen 75% of the time.

Externally hired executives usually are prized for their new skills and different perspectives, as well as their willingness to implement change (Harris & Helfat, 1997). However, organiza-tions need to actively help these newly hired executives transition into their new positions if they want to reap the benefi ts from outside hiring. Research reveals that when assistance is

2006). Ironically, research also suggests that it takes a mid-to-senior-level manager an aver-age 6.2 months to reach a ‘break-even point’. It is the date when the new manager’s contribu-tion to the organizacontribu-tion begins to surpass the company’s cost of employing the manager and bringing him or her up to speed (Wells, 2005). It is important to understand that the breakeven point is defi ned in terms of contribution, not necessarily optimal contribution. It may take even longer before the new hire reaches the level of optimal contribution. Therefore, it is criti-cal for organizations to proactively help new hires make a successful transition into their new position and environment as early as possible. It is especially critical for newly hired leaders. According to Bradt, Check, and Pedraza (2006), 40% of leaders going into new organizational roles fail during their fi rst 18 months. The esti-mated organizational costs of just one such failed executive-level hire can be as high as $2.7 mil-lion (Bossert, 2004). With the recent skyrocket-ing salaries of newly hired executives, this fi gure is sure to rise in the future.

Although the term ‘executive onboarding’ is relatively new in the academic world, organiza-tions have been using new employee orientation programs and socialization techniques for a long, long time. The focus of new employee orientation is on the introduction of the new employee to company policies and procedures, and to provide them realistic information regarding the new work environment. The objective of socializa-tion, in contrast, tends to be on the development of a collective organizational identity and the creation of a feeling of belongingness through learning the people, politics, language, values, and history of the organization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

Executive onboarding is a process directly focused on actively integrating new executives or senior-level managers into the company. Typically, onboard-ing includes an initial new employee orientation process. However, onboarding activities continue for the ensuing 3–6 months – or however long not provided, external hires are more likely to

fail than insiders promoted in to such positions (Charan, 2005; Ciampa & Watkins, 1999a; Zhang, 2008). Executive onboarding frequently has been used by companies during the past 10–15 years to assist senior executives through the transition.

Unfortunately, onboarding – as it is typi-cally implemented – appears to have had little impact on improving executive hiring success rates. One reason for this outcome is that the onboarding experiences in many companies are merely modest extensions of socialization prac-tices and new employee orientation techniques that have been around for decades. Little empha-sis and effort are given to the unique nature of corporate executives and the strategic focus of their jobs. Further, the literature has provided no theoretical framework of executive onboard-ing to assist organizations in the development of effective onboarding practices. In this article, we initially discuss the difference between executive onboarding and traditional practices employed in helping new hires. Subsequently, we identify six problems externally hired executives often face in their new positions. We suggest that tailored onboarding can help newly such hired executives effectively deal with these six prob-lem areas. Most importantly, we review how executive onboarding when properly applied can assist newly hired executives more quickly and successfully achieve the strategic goals of the organization. Finally, a conceptual framework of executive onboarding is proposed.

T

HE EVOLUTION OF PRACTICES TO HELP ONBOARD NEW HIRES

Research has clearly shown that attitudes and beliefs new hires develop toward their orga-nization generally form very early on the job and remain relatively stable over time (Bauer & Green, 1994; Wanous, 1973). One study found that 90% of new employees make their decision to stay at a company within the fi rst 6 months of employment (Aberdeen Research,

information (such as policies and procedures, organizational structure and culture, and signif-icant people) into a few mind-numbing hours. Typical onboarding activities tend to be reactive and emergency driven with little or no plan, using a ‘no news is good news’ or an ‘out of sight out of mind’ approach to follow-up newcomers. Many organizations assume that new leaders possess the social skills and business understand-ing to tap the organizational network them-selves, so they invest little time introducing new leaders around the company. However, without some initial support and a framework for learn-ing, many leaders fi nd it diffi cult to reach out to new colleagues by themselves.

Practitioners have begun to scrutinize the concept of onboarding in recent years, suggest-ing a variety of so-called ‘onboardsuggest-ing best prac-tices’. For illustration, it has been recommended that onboarding should be integrated in to the overall hiring management process (Snell, 2006) and extended to (at least) the fi rst 6 months of employment (Aberdeen Research, 2006). It also has been suggested that companies should take advantage of web-based technology to automate processes for employee onboarding (Aberdeen Research, 2008). In addition, it is widely agreed that HR should take a central role in the onboarding process (Wells, 2005), and that the involvement of senior leadership and multiple (stakeholder) resources needs to occur (Conger & Fishel, 2008). These ‘best practices’ focus most of the attention on implementation and proce-dural elements. There is a lack of theoretical discussion regarding what specifi c problem areas onboarding should address to assist newly hired executive-level employees.

We contend that executive onboarding should differ from traditional new employee orientation and socialization in several ways. First, onboard-ing practices should focus on actively integratonboard-ing new senior-level managers and executives into the company. Second, there typically are strate-gic intentions for organizations when external executives are hired. While employee orientation it takes to get the new executive ‘up to speed’ in

a particular company or function (Lee, 2006). Traditionally, scholars have specifi ed two key per-formance indicators of the onboarding process: (a) engagement and retention of the new hire, and (b) time to productivity (Conger & Fishel, 2008). See Figure 1.

The empirical evidence on onboarding sug-gests that the effi cacy of traditional activities is suspect. A recent study found that only 30% of global executives were satisfi ed with their onboarding experience. In contrast, 32% rated it as poor or below average (Pomeroy, 2006). Another onboarding study of more than 100 organizational leaders, ranging from senior-level managers to CEOs, reported only 39% were satisfi ed with their company’s efforts to inte-grate them into their new organizations (Wells, 2005).

A primary reason for these low ratings appears to be that many companies simply are continuing to employ ordinary orientation and socialization techniques to onboard new execu-tives. For example, some companies seem to view onboarding as a check list of disjointed activities rather than an integrated process of executive involvement. In addition, there is fre-quently unclear ownership of onboarding tasks between the human resources (HR) staff and the hiring manager. Newcomers often become overwhelmed during the fi rst few days on the job when companies end up cramming lots of

FIGURE 1: THEBREAKEVENPOINTFOLLOWINGAN EXECUTIVE’SENTRYINTOANORGANIZATION.

(ROI) increases as the focus of the onboarding moves from the left (reactive and tactical) to the right (proactive and strategic) as onboarding activities become more closely related to strate-gic performance goals.

O

NBOARDING EXTERNAL EXECUTIVES:

S

IX STRATEGIC AREAS TO ADDRESS

Before we can specify what strategic content areas onboarding should focus on, it is impor-tant to understand the factors related to the success or failure of newly hired external execu-tives. The fi rst author reviewed the management and leadership literature, particularly succession studies, to identify critical onboarding content areas. During this review, an effort was made to understand what specifi c issues the studies were addressing. Those specifi c issues then were abstracted at a higher conceptual level. Two deci-sion criteria were employed to categorize the critical onboarding areas: (a) was there suffi cient evidence to support the importance of the area and (b) did the study address the onboarding issue from different perspectives. The literature review and abstraction process led to the identi-fi cation of six areas appearing to directly impact the derailment of new executives and the achieve-ment of strategic goals. Subsequently, the second and third authors independently confi rmed the relevancy and importance of these six onboard-ing areas based on their executive coachonboard-ing and onboarding experience.

In the following section, we discuss each of the areas and propose how onboarding – when implemented strategically – can help newly hired executives make a smooth transition into a new organizational environment and successfully per-form their strategic roles. All the six onboarding areas are related to preventing derailment and accelerating contribution. But they are presented in a sequence refl ecting the idea that initial factors affect derailment more than performance contri-bution, whereas effective intervention on the later factors are more important to achieving strategic performance goals.

and socialization can help new employees adapt to the culture and business environment of the hiring organizations, the assimilation of the new executive into the status quo may not match the strategic intention for which the high level out-side executive originally was hired. Third, execu-tive onboarding involves some stakeholders not included in a typical new employee orientation or socialization program (e.g., premier custom-ers, board members). Fourth, and most impor-tantly, organizations generally follow a routine process to orient and socialize newcomers for lower level employees. In contrast, new execu-tives face many different and unique situations. Effective onboarding should be tailored to the specifi c needs of organizations and the newly hired executives.

Overall, executive onboarding transcends new employee orientation and socialization. There are unique factors infl uencing new execu-tives’ transition. Executives are likely to derail if the organization fails to address these areas. More importantly, an effective onboarding pro-cess will enhance the probability of achieving the hiring organizations’ strategic goals. Successful onboarding helps organizations achieve strategic optimization of the external hire. We propose a model of executive onboarding that encompasses four objectives: (a) avoiding derailment, (b) fos-tering retention, (c) catalyzing acceleration, and (d) achieving optimization. See Figure 2. In this model, we theorize that return on investment

constrain subsequent position holders. Position imprints refer to the key expectations regarding how the position holder should conduct his or her job. Predecessors tend to establish an initial allocation of tasks and responsibilities that map to their own experiences. Once established, the job descriptions, job titles, and internal selection cri-teria become tangible manifestations of position expectations. These initial boundaries are further solidifi ed through interaction with other position holders who develop expectations about what the position entails, how its tasks should be accom-plished, and what kind of individual is best suited to fi ll the position.

The properties of the position are passed from position taker to position taker, because the peo-ple making the hiring decision, as well as existing employees who interact with the position, have preconceived expectations regarding the bound-aries of responsibilities, the requisite skills, and the metrics of success for the position. When a successor steps in, how much the executive matches the position imprint can greatly impact his or her perceived performance. Burton and Beckman (2007) observed that successors who did not match the position imprints were more likely to turnover. Logically, the position imprint will infl uence externally hired CEOs more than internally groomed ones, since the former has less of a historical view of the position than the latter. We propose that executive onboard-ing should signifi cantly enhance the new hires’ awareness of the potential position imprints and help them understand the do’s and taboos of the new position.

Proposition II: Setting clear

performance and contribution

expectations

At the time this article was written, one of the authors was coaching a senior executive at a manufacturing company in the Midwest. There was much tension between the coached executive and his boss, the CEO. During one-on-one con-versations with both of them, it was discovered

Proposition I: Addressing position

imprint of predecessor

The fact that the former CEO can infl uence a successor’s performance is well documented in the literature. In the book entitled, The Hero’s Farewell, Sonnenfeld (1988) described the fol-lowing four types of executive departure style: (a) the monarch, (b) the general, (c) the ambas-sador, and (d) the governor. Succession is espe-cially diffi cult under the fi rst two departure styles. According to Sonnenfeld, monarchs do not believe in a planned succession process. Hence, the transition of power from a monarch to a suc-cessor is not smooth, and sometimes can be bru-tal. Likewise, chief executives who leave offi ce in the general’s departure style have a strong ongo-ing need to establish a lastongo-ing legacy. The cor-porate general’s desire to continue to direct the fi rm’s activities makes it very diffi cult for them to depart quietly. When there are opportuni-ties, they will charge back to regain their lost command.

Successors frequently experience tremen-dous stress when they replace highly successful, retired executives. Internal employees tend to measure the successors’ performance against their predecessors, and so does the outside public. As an example, since succeeding Jack Welch, Jeff Immelt has been under media scrutiny repeatedly. Recently, BusinessWeek examined the performance of General Electric (GE) under Jeff Immelt rela-tive to Jack Welch, Reginald Jones, Fred Borch, and Ralph Cordiner (McGregor, 2008). Cordiner was CEO of GE half a century ago. Replacing the most celebrated CEO (Jack Welch) of his gen-eration, Immelt inherited an infl ated stock price that fostered unrealistic expectations. Although Immelt managed to produce double-digit per-centage growth in annual earnings and annual revenue gains over the fi rst few years of his term, the market responded by a negative 30.2% in stock return, the worst compared to his four predecessors.

Burton and Beckman (2007) investigated how ‘position imprints’ left by predecessors can

determine the selection criteria and evaluate the candidates without a clear understanding of posi-tion requirements. However, executive selecposi-tion should not be treated as a static, one-time deci-sion made by organizations (Baughman, Dorsey, & Schalm, 2009). Business contexts and organiza-tional dynamics frequently change. Once selected and placed, executive success is largely a function of the ongoing management of person-to-role fi t. In the transition phase, organization stakeholders and hired executives should continue to commu-nicate and update performance expectations in response to the dynamic business requirements (National Association of Corporate Directors, 2004).

Proposition III: Recognizing

that parts of leadership are not

transportable

For a long time, scholars have identifi ed three types of functional management skills: (a) fi rm-specifi c skills, (b) industry-rm-specifi c skills, and (c) generic skills which are transferable across fi rms and industries (Becker, 1964; Harris & Helfat, 1997). Executives may fi nd it easy to make the transition into a new job role or environment, depending on whether the transition is across fi rms or industries. GE often is viewed as a tal-ent machine for churning out corporate leaders. Between 1989 and 2001, nearly two dozen for-mer GE executives had been appointed chairman, CEO, or CEO-designate in various companies. On average, the stock market reaction to the hir-ing announcement was a gain of about $1.3 billion for the hiring corporation, but no change in GE’s share price at the time of the hiring (Economist, 2003).

However, not all GE alumni delivered on their promise. Groysberg, McLean, and Nohria (2006) investigated the individual performance of 20 GE alumni, as well as the needs and strategies of the corporations that hired them. This study found that many of these gifted executives did not make star CEOs. According to the authors, there are many different types of leadership skills that the source of this tension was due largely

to a misalignment of performance expectations. The executive perceived he was brought in to the company to act as a change agent, but the CEO never had such an expectation. Traditionally, realistic job previews (RJP) were used to pro-vide applicants with information on various positive and negative aspects of the job, such as pay, benefi ts, work hours, stress, and degree of physical risk (Wanous, 1973). The assumption was that such realistic information about the job would lead to an accurate evaluation of job fi t by the candidate and decrease the likelihood of subsequent on-the-job disillusionment. In The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave, Branham (2005) identifi ed unrealistic expectations as the number one reason why employees disengage and quit. We suggest that RJP should expand beyond job conditions and rewards to include performance expectations. In other words, newly hired executives should have a realistic perspec-tive of what is expected of them in terms of per-formance objectives and time lines. For example, is organizational change desired? Why? What is the role of the executive in implementing such change? Are there any time frames? What are the cost parameters? The clarifi cation of performance expectations will determine how the new execu-tive is assimilated into the organization. If conti-nuity is preferred, then onboarding can help the new executives adjust to the organization’s cur-rent structure, policies, and culture. In contrast, if innovation and change is preferred, it might be in the organization’s interest to prevent the newly hired executive from being socialized into the old organizational culture (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Slus, & Saks, 2007). Consequently, the strategic onboarding experience of the external executive should be congruent with the expected performance goals and contributions.

One may assert that role specifi cation already is an integrated part of the executive search and selection process. Indeed, executive search typi-cally starts with role specifi cation. There is no way that search and recruitment committees can

see greater potential for radical improvement than existing executives. They also do not have the psy-chological ties – perceived and real – within the hiring organizations that may complicate efforts to change the organization. On the other hand, outsiders possess some key disadvantages as well. They may not understand company traditions, history, the customer base, the employees, and mostly importantly, the source(s) of problems. Outsiders have little fi rst-hand knowledge of the organization and no prior assessment of the relevant issues. Some outsiders quickly jump to immature solutions. Others misdiagnose the situ-ation or implement signifi cant changes in unrea-sonable time frames that are not tolerated by various stakeholders.

In the book titled, The Dynamics of Taking Charge, Gabarro (1987) described four stages of change: (a) taking hold, (b) immersion, (c) reshaping, and (d) consolidation. It can take 2–3 years to complete a signifi cant organiza-tional change according to Gabarro. Some types of corporate strategic change may take an even longer time (Kotter, 1995), depending on its depth and width and how fundamentally dif-ferent it is from the previous business model. However, business owners, boards of direc-tors, and investors are becoming increasingly impatient (Economist, 2003; Grube, 1995). For example, these days owners of professional sports may fi re the head coach if a team has one bad season. The same consequence occurs in the business world. It is not unusual for a newly hired external executive who is perceived to be failing to be quickly terminated. New executives do not have the luxury of slow growth or delayed turnarounds. Consider the shrinking tenure of CEOs. In 2007, the average global CEO tenure was 6 years. Fully, one-third of CEOs who exited did so against their will (Weber Shandwick, 2008). Therefore, it is absolutely critical to accelerate outsiders’ accumulation of the inside views so that informed, effective changes can be made quickly. Onboarding can greatly accelerate an executive’s learning process.

we need to consider. Some of these leadership skills are transportable from company to com-pany, while others are not. The most transport-able skills encompass general management such as decision making, functional expertise, and operating skills. The least transportable leadership skills are company-specifi c such as the social rela-tionships with other team members or colleagues. Groysberg et al. (2006) contend that some of the GE alumni failed because of these least transport-able leadership skills.

There is a controversy in the fi eld of lead-ership. Some authors assert that ‘a leader is a leader’ and great leaders will be able to operate in multiple domains (Spencer & Spencer, 1993). For example, Lou Gerstner’s success at IBM often is cited to support this argument. Other experts are of the opinion that leadership is domain specifi c (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2008). We posit that general management skills are fun-damental to executive success. At the same time, we acknowledge that domain specifi c knowledge and skills (such as the general knowledge about the industry in which a company is operating) also are crucial to the executive performance. It is essential for new executives to be suffi ciently fl exible to learn new skills and develop those least transportable capabilities when they cross busi-ness domains. Thus, we propose that onboarding should help build new hires’ least transportable leadership skills.

Proposition IV: Providing ‘outside’

hires with ‘inside’ views

One reason why companies look outside their organization for new hires is due to a lack of tal-ent. A company may not possess the culture or the systems to grow their future leaders. Thus, such organizations have no choice but to look outside. Companies also search for fresh leader-ship when they are in extreme fi nancial diffi culty and desire strategic change (Shen & Cannella, 2003). In this case, outsiders have several advan-tages over insiders (Bower, 2007; Charan, 2005). They are more likely to have broader views and

are no better equipped to turn around poor per-formance than internally groomed successors. When organizational change is the major reason for the succession, the onboarding process must help the new executive assess the readiness of the organization for change and build a culture of changeability into the organization before initiat-ing change.

Other times, organizations do not know what they need and look to the newly appointed incum-bent for direction. These organizations are not good at recognizing the necessity for change let alone determining antecedents to change to make the appointment process a smooth transition. It is even more important for the onboarding process to help the newly hired top executive assess the organizational readiness in these situations when strategic change is determined necessary.

Proposition VI: Building an effective

senior leadership team

Finally, new executives will likely fail to implement their strategic initiatives and achieve any mean-ingful organizational contributions unless they are able to build an effective senior team to sup-port them (Lombardo, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1988; McCall & Lombardo, 1983; Van Velsor & Leslie, 1995). The building of an effective team is especially critical when executives come into a new environment. Ciampa and Watkins (1999b, p. 195) asserted, ‘No matter how effective they are at learning and visioning, new leaders will fail if they are unable to muster a critical mass of support for their initiatives’. In his book, Good to Great, Collins (2001, p. 42) observed that:

the executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not fi rst fi gure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they fi rst got the right people on the bus (and wrong people off the bus) and then fi gured out where to drive it.

New executives occasionally will bring with them a team of former colleagues. However, it should be understood that this approach

Proposition V: Preparing the

organization for change

Oftentimes, companies hire outsiders for fresh leadership, especially in cases when fi rms are not performing well. The hope is that an out-sider will initiate organizational changes that are long overdue (Wiersema, 2002; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2005). However, there can be internal resistance that is suffi ciently strong to make the new executive fail. A Harvard Business Review case study illustrates this point (see McNulty, 2002). In the case, a newly hired CEO desired to implement an aggressive expan-sion plan for her company. The company was a 94-year-old manufacturer of high quality wooden toys located in the Midwest. To make the situation more interesting, she was the fi rst person from outside the family to hold the top job. She had many ideas for new products, planned to establish manufacturing capabili-ties offshore, and wanted everything moving very quickly. She also had the corner offi ce – a space that had been the CEO’s offi ce for genera-tions – converted into a conference room. She envisioned such a move would symbolize that things were going to be different. Not too sur-prisingly, the expansion plans hit the wall, and people were not following her innovative leader-ship style.

New executives frequently arrive and declare, ‘Here’s my vision, let’s go forward’. They neglect to create any sense of urgency about why change is needed or what might be other people’s vision. Change guru, John Kotter, asserted that if the sense of urgency is not suffi ciently high at the beginning of any organizational change project, complacency eventually will win out (Kotter, 2008). When change is perceived as necessary, new executives have to transform complacency and the anger and anxiety associated with the perceived problems into an active determina-tion to move forward. People throughout the organization must be ready for and supportive of the change. Ironically, Zhang and Rajagopalan’s (2005) research indicated that outside CEOs

be applied to all situations. Effective onboarding needs to be tailored to the organization and the executive. The onboarding experience should begin with an assessment to identify areas rel-evant to a specifi c executive’s transition situation. For instance, readiness for change might be a problem for some organizations, but not others. Likewise, development of support teams might be a critical issue for some executives, but not oth-ers. Organizations should not jump into routine onboarding processes without fully understanding what strategic issues are likely to derail their newly hired executives and hinder their achievement of strategic goals.

Some of these critical areas may be primarily under the control of the executives themselves. In these situations, executive coaching should be provided to facilitate the new executives’ transi-tion into the new roles and environment. Other areas may be more directly under the control of the organization itself. In these instances, companies need to proactively remove obstacles that can adversely affect the performance of the new executive. Regardless of the source of the problem, successful onboarding requires effort from both the new executive and the hiring organization.

Take the predecessor position imprint as one example. Conger and Nadler (2004) illus-trate vividly how predecessors can impact the new executives’ performance. Accordingly, the authors describe how boards of directors and the outgoing executives need to assume part of the responsibility for early-tenure executive fl ameouts. At the same time, Conger and Nadler (2004) suggest that the new executives should proactively seek to understand the challenges the predecessors left behind. It is important for the new executive to fi nd out as much as possible about initiatives launched in recent years by the departing executive. It also is prudent for the new executive to talk extensively with employees and company clients to understand their perceptions and their expectations. The probability of success is increased markedly when the new executive inadvertently may induce organizational

disrup-tion, leading to unnecessary management turn-over and sagging workplace morale (Friedman & Saul, 1991). The newly hired outside executive must network across the organization and build support teams in the new environment. Such relationship building represents one of the least transportable leadership skills that executives possess. Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy (2002) claimed that up to one-half of the leaders in organizations today do not build cohesive teams, greatly reducing the likelihood of achieving their desired business results. A key characteristic of executive onboarding needs to be directed at the process of building cohesive teams throughout the organization and, in particular, at the senior leadership level.

D

ISCUSSION

Conger and Nadler (2004) stated that when internally promoted CEOs fail, the blame for these costly and puzzling failures cannot be placed solely on the derailed CEOs’ shoulders. It is par-ticularly true for externally hired CEOs. When external executives fail, both personal and organi-zational causes are responsible for the derailment. In this article, we proposed a model of executive onboarding that encompass four key objectives – preventing derailment, fostering retention, cata-lyzing performance acceleration, and achieving strategic optimization. We further identifi ed six problematic areas on which to focus executive onboarding. These areas may not be exhaustive, but represent an initial attempt to understand the tough situations externally hired executives are likely to face. Businesses should focus beyond the traditional onboarding procedural-related issues to directly help such new executives enhance their performance strategically.

Effective onboarding should be

tailored to new executives and

hiring organizations

One implication of our research is the recogni-tion that no single, fi xed onboarding activity can

process and strategic outcomes for executives and organizations. The direct effects correspond to the critical areas the onboarding process is designed to address. For example, if unclear performance expectations are a concern, executives will gain an enhanced understanding of their role as a result of the onboarding and prioritize organizational initiatives. Strategic outcomes also are more likely to occur, because the onboarding explicitly addresses specifi c issues pertaining to the newly hired executive.

In the middle of the table, key onboard-ing activities are highlighted. Based on the above discussion, we recommend that execu-tive onboarding should consist of the follow-ing critical activities: (a) carefully analyzfollow-ing the unique situation the newly hired executive is entering, (b) planning and implementing the onboarding experience based on that analysis, (c) actively involving all key stakeholders dur-ing the onboarddur-ing process, (d) providdur-ing ongo-ing assistance and developmental opportunities, and (e) monitoring the process and subsequently remolding the onboarding accordingly. The pur-pose of the situational analysis is to understand the organizational context and identify obstacles that may hinder the new executive’s transition to the new job and business environment. The six strategic onboarding areas discussed here provide direction for this analysis.

Based on the initial assessment, an onboard-ing plan can be crafted to specify the focus of the intervention as well as specifi c onboarding objectives and milestones. Most importantly, the onboarding should involve key stakeholders. Depending on the areas to be addressed, stake-holders may be different from one organization to the next and from executive to executive. Ask questions such as who is critical to the new exec-utive’s future success in this organization? And what specifi c onboarding issues are related to the key stakeholders? In some situations, key stake-holders (e.g., a monarch CEO) are the targets of the intervention. Other times, key stakeholders can facilitate the new executive’s transition by understands his or her predecessor’s legacy and

position imprints.

Take leadership skill as another example. Naturally, an organization will have conducted due diligence to match the executive to the position. However, even with the most rigorous background checks and behavioral assessments, new executives may have some unforeseen weaknesses that can prevent them from opti-mizing their performance in the new position. It is important to remember that there exists ‘information asymmetry’ between the organiza-tion and potential outside executive candidates during the recruitment and selection process (Zhang, 2008). Consequently, it is diffi cult for organizations to fully assess and understand candidates. In addition, the constantly chang-ing business environment imposes new leader-ship requirements on individuals. Newly hired executives should be aware of their strengths as well as weaknesses and be receptive to develop competencies required for the job (Ancona, Malone, Orlikowski, & Senge, 2007). While this point might seem like common sense, many top executives apparently fail to do it, as evidenced by the high rate of executive derail-ment (Finkelstein, 2003; Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). Likewise, organizations need to assume some of the responsibilities to develop their new executives. Companies can assist by providing feedback, coaching, and developmen-tal opportunities. In some instances, organiza-tions might consider building a team around the new executive to compensate for his or her weaknesses.

A conceptual framework of strategic

executive onboarding

Table 1 depicts the conceptual framework of our executive onboarding propositions. On the left of the table, the six critical areas provide con-crete direction for the onboarding effort. On the right, the positive results of effective onboarding are presented. These consequences fall into two broad categories – direct effects of the onboarding

external hires are part of the company’s strate-gic plans. Thus, it is necessary for the executive onboarding activities to be aligned to achieve these strategic plans.

Organizational moderators

In this article, we proposed a generic conceptual framework of strategic executive onboarding. However, the reader should realize that there may be organizational and industrial factors that impact the salience of the six onboarding issues we reviewed. We will briefl y discuss some of these moderating factors in the following paragraphs. When discussing these factors, we do not nec-essarily make fi rm conclusions. Rather, we view them as topics worth further investigation. providing coaching and counseling. If

neces-sary, external coaches can be hired to help new executives.

Bottom-line

Executive onboarding needs to be strategic. It is the fundamental difference between execu-tive onboarding and new employee orientation and socialization programs. Prior to onboard-ing the new executive, organizations should understand what their strategic goals are, how the newly hired executive will play a role in achieving them, what the mission critical skills are required to accomplish them, and how orga-nizational dynamics might enable or hinder the new executive’s strategic initiatives. Very often,

TABLE 1: A CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKOFTHEEXECUTIVEONBOARDINGPROCESSFORSENIORLEADERS

TABLE 1: A CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORKOFTHEEXECUTIVEONBOARDINGPROCESSFORSENIORLEADERS

Critical onboarding areas Strategic onboarding activities Onboarding results • Addressing position imprint of

predecessor

• Setting clear expectations • Recognizing non-portable

aspects of leadership • Providing ‘outside’ hires with

‘inside’ views

• Preparing the organization for change

• Building an effective senior team

Situational analysis • Organizational objectives • Enabling and derailing factors Onboarding plan

Direct effects

• Smooth power transition from predecessor to successor • Self awareness and leadership • Strategic understanding of

the role

• Enhanced understanding of organization

• Prepared organization for strategic

Strategic Outcomes

• Shortened ‘breakeven point’ • Increased job satisfaction • Enhanced retention • Achievement of organizational strategic goals • Focus • Prioritize • Execute

Key stakeholder involvement • Board and/or HR • Boss • Peers • Direct reports • Important others Ongoing support • Periodic pulse check • Feedback and coaching Monitoring the onboarding process

• Reanalyze the situation • Reset priorities

Temporal mental model

Temporal mental model refers to an organization’s preference toward pace and time orientation. Logically, new executives will feel more pressure to accelerate their learning when they enter organiza-tions that prefer a fast pace and short-term orien-tation than a slow pace and long-term orienorien-tation. Temporal mental model is infl uenced largely by industry. In a very dynamic and competitive industry (e.g., IT or retail), organizations usually adopt a fast pace and/or short-term orientation. In contrast, organizations in stable industries, such as utility, often adopt a slow pace and/or long-term orientation. This industrial difference may infl u-ence the perceived necessity to onboard executive.

C

ONCLUSION

Like many other concepts (e.g., coaching, employee engagement, management by objec-tives), executive onboarding was initiated in the business world. The conceptual and theo-retical exploration of this concept by scholars has lagged far behind its application. Although there have been some best practices proposed by practitioners, we believe that the content domain of executive onboarding has been much less studied. This article represents a fi rst step to identify the strategic components of executive onboarding. It is expected that both practitio-ners and academicians will benefi t from this research. We hope that it helps practitioners refocus their attention on implementing an onboarding experience for newly hired execu-tives that capitalizes on the unique nature of their organizational roles. Further, we hope our review provides researchers a systematic way to investigate the causes and effects of onboarding senior business leaders.

References

Aberdeen Research (2006, August).

Onboarding benchmark report: Technology drivers help. Accessed January 9, 2007 from http://silkroadtech.com/documents/ Structure of the senior management

team

Stratifi cation, or the differences in rank among individual members of the senior management team, is an important property of team structure. The centralization of power may be instrumental to a new top executive’s decision making capabil-ity. On the other hand, when the distribution of power within a top team is balanced, a broad participation and information sharing is needed to making decisions within the team. Failure to address the team issue in this situation likely would be detrimental to a new executive’s perfor-mance in the new environment.

Organizational life cycle

Organizations progress through predictable phases of development known as life cycles. Entering entrepreneurial organizations as opposed to mature ones may present differ-ent challenges to new executives. For example, succeeding a successful founder in an entrepre-neurial organization might be more diffi cult than succeeding a top executive in a mature one, because founders are more likely to leave strong position imprints than executives in mature companies. On the other hand, as com-panies mature, bureaucracy starts, making it harder for new executives to execute strategic change.

Organizational type

One of the major purposes of executive onboard-ing is to help new executives gain an insider view. It is believed that the earlier it starts, the better the outcomes. However, the information new executives obtain may be infl uenced by organi-zational type. For example, new executives can obtain much information about public compa-nies even before they start the job. It is not so easy to reach information regarding private organiza-tions. Therefore, onboarding may be particularly important for new executives entering private organizations.

BusinessWeek (1993, October 11). CEOs with the outside edge. Accessed December 10, 2008 from http://www.businessweek/com/archives/1993/ b334045.arc.htm

Charan, R. (2005). Ending the CEO succes-sion crisis. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 72–81.

Ciampa, D., & Watkins, M. (1999a). The succes-sor’s dilemma. Harvard Business Review, 77(6), 161–168.

Ciampa, D., & Watkins, M. (1999b). Right from the start: Taking charge in a new leadership role. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some

compa-nies make the leap and others don’t. New York: Collins Business.

Conger, J. A., & Fishel, B. (2008). Accelerating leadership performance at the top: Lessons from the Bank of America’s executive on-boarding process. Human Resource Management Review, 17, 442–454.

Conger, J. A., & Nadler, D. A. (2004). When CEOs step up to fail. MIT Sloan Management, 45(3), 50–56.

Economist (2003). Coming and going. Economist, 369(8347), 12–14.

Finkelstein, S. M. (2003). Why smart executives fail: And what you can learn from their mistakes. New York: Portfolio.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effect on organizations. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Company.

Friedman, S. D., & Saul, K. (1991). A leader’s wake: Organization member reactions to CEO succession. Journal of Management, 17, 619–642.

Gabarro, J. J. (1987). The dynamics of taking charge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Groysberg, B., McLean, A. N., & Nohria, N. (2006). Are leaders portable? Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 92–100.

Grube, L. (1995). CEOs at risk dismissal of execu-tives turnover. The Chief Executive, 108(11), 42–43.

Harris, D., & Helfat, C. (1997). Specifi city of CEO human capital and compensation. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 895–920. Whitepapers/OnboardingBenchmarkReport.

pdf

Aberdeen Research (2008, January). All aboard: Effective onboarding techniques and strate-gies. Accessed December 10, 2008 from http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/ benchmark/4574-RA-effective-onboarding-strategies.asp

Ancona, D., Malone, T. W., Orlikowski, W. J., & Senge, P. M. (2007). In praise of the incomplete leader. Harvard Business Review 85(2), 92–100. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996).

Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178.

Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socializa-tion models. Journal of Vocasocializa-tional Behavior, 70, 447–462.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of new-comer involvement in work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 211–223.

Baughman, W. A., Dorsey, D. W., & Schalm, R. L. (2009). Executive fi t is negotiated, not selected. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 155–158.

Becker, G. (1964). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bossert, R. (2004, September). Transition coach-ing accelerates leadership success, Chief

Learning Offi cer – Web Only Content. Accessed December 10, 2008 from http://www.arclead. com/fi les/News/Transcoaching%201.pdf Bower, J. L. (2007). Solve the succession crisis by

growing inside-outside leaders. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 90–96.

Bradt, G., Check, J. A., & Pedraza, J. (2006). The new leader’s 100-day action plan. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Branham, L. (2005). The 7 hidden reasons employees leave: How to recognize the subtle signs and act before it’s too late. New York: AMACOM. Burton, M. D., & Beckman, C. M. (2007).

Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and suc-cessor turnover in young fi rms. American Sociological Review, 72, 239–266.

Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. (2003). Will suc-cession planning increase shareholder wealth? Evidence from investor reactions to relay CEO succession. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 191–198.

Snell, A. (2006). Researching onboarding best practice. Strategic HR Review, 5(6), 32–35. Sonnenfeld, J. (1988). The hero’s farewell: What

happens when CEOs retire? New York: Oxford University Press.

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley. Tuna, C. (2008, July 28). Hiring a CEO

from the outside is more expensive. The Wall Street Journal Online. Accessed December 10, 2008 from http://online. wsj.com/article/SB121719208233988107. html?mod=fpa_editors_picks

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Van Velsor, E., & Leslie, J. (1995). Why

execu-tives derail: Perspecexecu-tives across time and culture. Academy of Management Executive, 9(4), 62–72. Wanous, J. P. (1973). Effects of a realistic job

preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 327–332.

Weber Shandwick (2008, March 3). Global CEO turnover rises 10 percent in part 12 months according to new Weber Shandwick study. Accessed December 10, 2008 from http://www. webershandwick.com

Wells, S. J. (2005). Diving in. HR Magazine, 50(3), 54–59.

Wiersema, M. (2002). Holes at the top: Why CEO fi rings backfi re? Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 70–78.

Zhang, Y. (2008). Information asymmetry and the dismissal of newly appointed CEOs: An empiri-cal investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 859–872.

Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2005). Grooming for the top post and ending the CEO succession crisis. Organizational Dynamics, 35(1), 96–105.

Received 06 August 2009 Accepted 26 March 2010

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment: Personality assessment and mitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), American Psychological Association handbook in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 555–575). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2002). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of expe-rience (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why

trans-formation efforts fail? Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.

Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Lee, D. (2006). Successful onboarding: How to get your new employees started off right? Accessed January 9, 2007 from http://www.humannatu-reatwork.com/successful_onboarding.htm Lombardo, M., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley,

C. D. (1988). Explanations of success and derailment in upper-level management posi-tions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 2, 199–216.

McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2008). Developing the expert leader. People & Strategy, 31(1), 20–28.

McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. (1983). What makes a top executive? Psychology Today, 17(2), 26–31.

McGregor, J. (2008). GE: The heat on Immelt. BusinessWeek, July 28, 35–37.

McNulty, E. (2002). Welcome aboard, but don’t change a thing. Harvard Business Review, 80(10), 32–40.

National Association of Corporate Directors (2004). Report of the NACD blue ribbon commission on CEO succession. Washington, DC: National Association of Corporate Directors.

Olson, M. S., van Bever, D., & Verry, S. (2008). When growth stalls. Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 50–61.

Pomeroy, A. (2006). Better executive onboarding processes needed. HR Magazine, 51(8), 16. Sessa, V. I., & Taylor, J. J. (2000). Executive

selec-tion: Strategies for success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.