In 2010, when David Nish was promoted from CFO to CEO at
Standard Life, he knew the scale of the challenge his company faced. The 185-year-old
giant had just embarked on a sweeping transformation from an insurer to a
long-term savings and investment company. Nish also knew that as the person
leading the change, he would be tested by decisions and management situations
he hadn’t encountered in the past. Certain that he could benefit from the
perspective of someone who had been down similar roads before, Nish turned to a
somewhat unusual adviser: Niall FitzGerald, a former chairman of Unilever.
The mentoring relationship they subsequently established is
illustrative of those we have studied in our research—a two-year inquiry into
an emerging way in which new CEOs in large organizations gain access to
seasoned counsel and feedback. We found dozens of executives who were
accelerating their learning by engaging the services of high-profile veteran
leaders from outside their companies. To learn more about this growing but as
yet undocumented phenomenon, we interviewed 15 chairman mentors and 25
protégés—CEOs, CEO designates, and CFOs. (Chairman Mentors International
facilitated access to many of the study participants.)
On the basis of what we heard, we are convinced that more
CEOs should connect with mentors rather than assume that theirs is a burden to
be shouldered alone. But we also discovered aspects of such arrangements that
make them trickier than the mentoring that takes place at lower organizational
levels. At the CEO level, special considerations must go into making a match
between mentor and mentee, structuring their sessions to deliver the intended
benefits, and prioritizing the process so that it isn’t crowded out by other
demands. By sharing what we’ve learned about these issues, we hope to pave the
way for more use of this highly efficient learning model.
Lonely Learning at the Top
Down in the ranks, mentoring has
become very popular in modern companies; many of them set up formal
arrangements whereby “old hands” help novices learn the ropes. In this way they
facilitate the acculturation, performance, and career progress of new entrants,
high potentials, and minority populations who lack enough obvious role models.
These efforts resemble the age-old practice of apprenticeship: observation of
the master, execution with supervision and feedback, gradual accretion of tacit
knowledge, and eventual attainment of mastery. The investments tend to pay off
well. Research on junior to midlevel professionals shows that such programs
enable them to advance more quickly, earn higher salaries, and gain more
satisfaction in their jobs and lives than people without mentors do. For
employers, the benefits are not only higher performance but also greater
success in attracting, developing, and retaining talent.
Most CEOs of large organizations have had the benefit of mentoring—and
other developmental activities such as stretch job assignments and leadership
programs—during their careers. But their arrival at the top suddenly narrows
the available and appropriate options. Gavin Patterson, who was promoted to
chief executive of the telecommunications giant BT Group in 2013, told us that
his company would have been “happy to send me to a top management program at
Harvard,” but he couldn’t afford to be absent so long. “If you are one of the
top 10 people in the business,” he noted, “the possibility of being away for
three months is practically zero.”
Yet CEOs must keep raising their game—and having their
thinking usefully challenged—for the good of their organizations. They must
routinely make decisions concerning matters they’ve never before tackled. When
have they ever had to spearhead a takeover—or defend against one? Resolve a
crisis as the public face of the company? Deal with a board of powerful
directors with divergent opinions? These demands require new talents. In the
words of one well-known executive coach, “What got you here won’t get you
there.”
In such high-stakes situations, CEOs need wise mentoring.
That’s not the same as coaching. Although executive coaches are often superb at
providing feedback and closing gaps in specific managerial skills, precious few
have actually worked in equivalent roles themselves. Mentors, by contrast, are
role models who have “been there and done that.” They can offer timely,
context-specific counsel drawn from experience; wisdom; and networks that are
highly relevant to the problems to be solved. And unlike company-managed
mentoring programs, CEO mentoring is driven by the mentee, reflecting a level
of customization rarely provided to people in the ranks.
When CEOs get this kind of support, good outcomes follow. We
surveyed 45 CEOs who have formal mentoring arrangements, and 71% said they were
certain that company performance had improved as a result. Strong majorities
reported that they were making better decisions (69%) and more capably
fulfilling stakeholder expectations (76%). More than anything else, these CEOs
credited mentors with helping them avoid costly mistakes and become proficient
in their roles faster (84%). Patterson spoke for many when he called mentoring
“a more practical way to develop.”
Making the Match
Given the clear benefits of mentoring for developing CEOs,
why is the practice not already ubiquitous? The single biggest obstacle is the
difficulty, and sometimes awkwardness, of making a match between mentor and
mentee—assuming that the CEO is not already lucky (or savvy) enough to have
gained informal access to a valued adviser.
Three Heads Are Better Than Two
What could be more valuable to a CEO than having an
experienced and trusted external mentor? Perhaps having two. When Paul Geddes
became the chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland’s insurance division, in
2009, he sought the counsel of two prominent board chairmen, each of whom had
led a large business over three or four decades.
Likewise, Gavin Patterson, the CEO of BT Group since
September 2013, started meeting with both Niall FitzGerald (a former chairman
of Unilever) and David Simon (a former chairman of British Petroleum) after his
promotion to chief executive of BT’s retail business, in 2008.
The practice may strike some observers as an invitation to
confusion. But these executives recognize that even the smartest mentor has
blind spots—some of which can overlap with a mentee’s. They also know that
having two mentors increases the likelihood of hearing from someone who has
dealt with similar complex and novel challenges.
The more diverse the challenges, the greater the benefit of
multiple mentors. One CEO we interviewed, the head of a UK utility, summed up
his view: “The two-mentor model is the ideal model. If offered twice the time
with one of them, I wouldn’t swap.”
Sometimes it’s the CEO’s boss, the chairman of the board,
who puts the wheels in motion. In 2009 Paul Geddes was the head of RBS Group’s
insurance division and a potential successor to the CEO. But when European
regulators required RBS to spin off the insurance business, he had a short time
to prepare for an IPO. He recalls, “I had a lot to prove, and a lot to learn
very quickly.” Geddes was introduced to the idea of a mentor by a board chairman
who had himself been part of a mentoring process.
However, an interesting alternative to colleagues as
connectors is emerging: high-level external consultants who play an
intermediary role. These professional “matchmakers” use their networks and
their insights into personality, often gained through executive recruiting, to
set up meetings between previously unacquainted business leaders. Typically a
first meeting is followed by a series of conversations, allowing both parties
to assess the potential for good outcomes from the relationship. (Contrast this
with what often happens at lower organizational levels, where mentors are
simply assigned to mentees.)
The mentors in our study were all former CEOs themselves and
unaffiliated with their mentees’ organizations. This profile satisfies three
needs: the need for relevant experience, the need for a broad perspective, and
the importance of complete trust.
“Relevant experience” usually means the mentor has sat in
the hot seat as the CEO of a large, complex enterprise and visibly succeeded. Geddes
talked about the need for mentors who were “10 to 15 years ahead” of their
mentees. Many of those in our study were semiretired and serving on multiple
boards.
A broad perspective, too, generally comes from the outside.
You want mentors who not only think differently but also understand how the
company is regarded in the marketplace. Take Nokia, once the mobile phone
market leader, which found itself in a precipitous slide as Apple and Samsung
claimed increasing market share. In 2010 Stephen Elop—a former Microsoft
executive—was brought in to turn the company around. At the suggestion of his
chairman, he began meeting with Peter Sutherland, a former chairman of BP and
the chairman of Goldman Sachs International. Sutherland’s help was on a purely
personal basis, and Elop, a Canadian, found him invaluable in many ways,
including as a guide to the unfamiliar dynamics of European board governance.
Moreover, Sutherland could offer an objective view as to whether Elop’s new
strategy was building positive momentum. (In September 2013 Nokia announced the
sale of its key assets to Microsoft at a significant premium to shareholders.)
Finally, the absolute necessity of trust in a mentoring
relationship drives CEOs to seek counsel from experienced outsiders. As Peter
Lynas, the CFO of BAE Systems, told us, “Only a certain level of issues can be
raised with an internal mentor.” For some chief executives it is simply too
risky to expose gaps in knowledge and experience to a chairman or a member of
the board. Martine Verluyten learned from mentors when she was the group
finance director of Umicore SA and found that it was “most effective when I was
trying to show my strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to trying to put up a
front.”
Speaking from the other side of the table, Roger Carr
(currently the chairman of BAE Systems and one of Paul Geddes’s two mentors)
stressed the importance of “being able to talk to someone in confidence who is
not a stakeholder or a paymaster.”
Making It Work
In the strongest CEO mentoring relationships we studied,
clear rules of engagement ensure that both parties commit to total
confidentiality (even when a CEO’s boss contacts the mentor to ask how his
charge is doing). This emboldens mentees to disclose without fear of
repercussions. Beyond that, interactions are designed to deliver what both see
as the aim: helping the CEO traverse the learning curve more quickly and
perform role functions more effectively.
Related to these rules of engagement is the expectation that
both parties will prioritize and prepare for meetings that are set and
organized by the mentee. It’s never easy to carve out time on a CEO’s calendar.
But to engage in the kind of mentoring described here and stick with it, the
executive must make it a part of his or her workflow. Sessions should have
formal agendas, defined by the problems currently confronting the CEO and
shared far enough in advance to allow mentors to reflect on their experience.
Geddes described an approach that was “structured, driven by me, irrespective
of topic,” and “felt like a live business process.”
Regular sessions—fairly long but fairly infrequent—are a
must. Putting dates on the calendar allows the CEO to set aside some thorny
issues that might otherwise be a nagging distraction, knowing they will be thoughtfully
addressed in due course. Robert Swannell, the chairman of Marks & Spencer,
describes why he chose this kind of mentoring arrangement for a new CEO: “We
wanted it to be a formal program where people knew we were spending money on
it, it would be taken seriously, and there would be a certain rigor to it.”
Finally, and despite such a disciplined structure, the mode
of knowledge sharing generally preferred by both parties is storytelling. Most
mentors told us that they shared specific and relevant examples from their own
careers—including not only triumphs but also poor decisions that resulted in
bad press, tarnished reputations, employee layoffs, or share price declines.
“The common thread would be genuine advice based on
true-life experience,” Carr concluded, thinking about the mentoring he had
provided to a number of executives. “The credibility of what I say is rooted in
the visibility of what I have done, over a long time.”
Plenty of research demonstrates the power of stories to
advance learning and development. Because they evoke emotion and empathy, they
prove far more memorable than other forms of information and idea sharing. By
presenting a chronological series of events, decisions, and consequences, they
suggest lessons without asserting them aggressively. They are always about
someone other than the listener, so they create psychologically safe spaces in
which to ponder “What would I do?” Thus a session that might have felt like an
interrogation or a lecture becomes a productive dialogue. Gavin Patterson put
it this way: “The mentoring was about codevelopment in situ, not about
preparation. Having the problems in front of you and sharing them with an
experienced mentor is really where the value comes.”
Most interesting to us was the psychological boost that
mentors’ war stories seemed to give new CEOs. David Nish told us, “The
storytelling my mentor gave me was way beyond expectations. It’s about
believing I’m unlimited…and I try to give my people the same—the belief that
they can do anything.”
Similar sentiments came from Chris Jones, the chief
executive of Welsh Water, who described a mentor’s habit of sharing what had
worked well elsewhere and then probing to find how the problem at hand was similar
or dissimilar: “Talking these issues through with someone who has experienced
similar challenges in their own past helps to give me a great deal of
confidence.”
What’s in It for the Mentor?
In this article we’ve highlighted the benefits that CEOs
derive from top-level mentoring relationships. But what makes them valuable to
mentors—especially those who are eminent and easily able to fill their time
with other important activities? In-depth interviews with 15 mentors revealed
the answers:
Sense of impact.
Our survey of mentees and mentors shows that they seek
different elements in a match. Mentees consider reputation, capabilities
relevant to their needs, and compatibility of styles. Mentors try to evaluate
openness to learning and potential for success. They have wisdom to share, and
they don’t want to waste it on people who won’t put it to use. Said another
way, they are motivated by the opportunity to have an impact.
Personal learning.
Mentors also consider whether a mentee has knowledge,
skills, and abilities from which they can learn. They appreciate industry,
career, cultural, geographic, and generational experiences that are different
from their own, and enjoy connecting with a new generation of leaders. Niall
FitzGerald, a former chairman of Unilever, says that mentoring “keeps me abreast
of what is currently challenging CEOs” and allows him to apply their thinking
to new problems, opening the door to future opportunities and learning.
Fees for service.
In many cases an external mentor receives a contractual fee
for the engagement, but it typically represents a small fraction of his or her
income, let alone net worth. A number of our study subjects told us they would
continue to mentor even if they weren’t paid. The contractual relationship
merely focuses both parties on making the most of the experience.
Teaching Top Dogs New Tricks
David Nish has little doubt that the mentoring he has
received from Niall FitzGerald has made a very real difference to his
performance—and Standard Life’s. Without testing his ideas against this
seasoned leader’s experience, he would have found it harder to assert a bold
strategic refocus, to tear down the walls of a stodgy hierarchy, and to put new
emphasis on performance management, talent management, cost effectiveness, and
investments in growth. Standard Life’s share price is at a record high. Over
the course of three years it returned £1.2 billion to shareholders and doubled
its market capitalization. The company is now seen as a leader in its industry.
Other CEOs in our study, and their organizations, have had similar success.
Not every CEO has had the benefit of such a valuable mentor.
But for the good of their organizations, perhaps more of them should. When
business leaders fail to decide and act wisely, their companies suffer. With
the right mentoring at the top, everyone stands to gain.
Suzanne de Janasz is the Thomas F. Gleed Chair of
Business Administration at Seattle University’s Albers School of Business and
Economics.
Maury Peiperl is a pro-vice-chancellor of
Cranfield University, in England, and the director of its School of Management.
