About
Contact
Active Searches
About
Contact
Active Searches

The Internal Candidate Dilemma: The Conversation Boards Avoid Having Until It’s Too Late

​Near the end of a first call about a CEO search, sometimes a board chair mentions, almost as an aside, that there’s someone on the leadership team who “might throw their hat in.” Although they often try to move on from there straight to timeline and budget, we usually stop them in that moment to talk more about the situation and how we will think through next steps.​

Left to their own devices, organizations often handle internal candidate applications poorly in one of two directions. Both are avoidable, and both come from the same conversation that is essential to have but often not had because of boards’ and leaders’ discomfort with being direct and upfront from the beginning.

The Anointing

The first potential failure is the quiet coronation. The C-level leader throwing their hat in the ring has been holding the organization together through the transition; the staff trusts them; and the board is tired. Promoting them feels like the responsible thing to do, and is often the path of least resistance internally. ​

At my company, we call this the safe-choice trap. When boards make a high-stakes decision they face maybe once a decade, familiarity feels like low risk. But the board knows how this person performs in their current role, under their current boss. It rarely knows how they’ll handle the job the organization needs next—whether that’s a turnaround, a capital campaign or a first tense meeting with an authorizer—and if the skills that got them to their number two role will also help them succeed in the top seat. ​

The cost usually shows up later. The promoted leader ends up doing their old job and the new one at the same time because nobody filled the gap they left. The organization never really tested their ability to demonstrate competencies and skills for the new job, just their ability to manage their previous responsibilities. Twelve to eighteen months in, the board starts wondering why the organization’s performance has stalled—and why the new leader is not proficient in their new role, even if they were never properly evaluated or supported in their new duties. ​

The Sham Search

The second failure runs the opposite way. The board has privately decided the internal candidate isn’t ready but doesn’t want to say so. So it runs a full national search and puts the internal candidate in the pool as a courtesy. The person is told they are welcome to apply. They are pushed through all the interview rounds—even if the board privately doesn’t feel their qualifications and experiences stack up to the others in the pool—and other staff, partners and community members are led on to think their familiar candidate has a shot when they are not a serious contender. ​

Everyone loses. External candidates can tell when a process is performative, and in any sector where people are well-connected, word travels. The best external folks won’t apply for a role if they think it’s a waste of their time. The internal candidate goes through a very public evaluation whose outcome was settled before it started. Other staff and partners can line up behind—or against—the person they know, leading to organization-wide friction and distrust.

And when the internal candidate does not get the job—the most likely outcome in a process where hundreds of people are narrowed to one single final hire—they usually leave within the year, taking hurt feelings and a great deal of institutional knowledge with them.​

The Conversation Before The Search

Both failures happen because the board skipped a conversation before launch. This important discussion starts with the board chair talking directly with the internal candidate before anything is posted and asking whether they want this, and why. A surprising number of internal candidates are in the pool because they felt they had to be rather than because they are compelled to take the next step in their leadership.​

Then the board assesses that person against the organizational moment, meaning what the next five years will actually demand, rather than against how well they do their current job. That requires writing down what the role needs before anyone’s name is attached to it. If the internal candidate clearly fits, a targeted process or even a direct appointment is legitimate. If they don’t, the board needs to know that before the search starts—not halfway through it—and should act accordingly. ​

Finally, the board decides in advance what happens if the internal candidate doesn’t get the job. What role do they keep? Who tells them, and how? The board needs to be ready to answer these questions before launch and should keep an open, honest dialogue with one another and the internal leader throughout the search process. ​

None of this is complicated, but it is uncomfortable, and that is why this step usually gets skipped until it is too late.

A Prediction

After more than twenty years vetting and placing senior leaders, I believe that organizations that settle the internal candidate question before launching a search will keep their eventual leader longer—whether that person came from inside or outside—than organizations that let the question ride through the process.

If you’re a board chair heading into a transition and there’s a name you haven’t said out loud yet, say it. Call that person this week, before a job description exists. Ask whether they want the job, and listen to the answer. That call won’t take long. It will be instructive to your process, and it may be the most important thing you do for the search.​

 

Christina Greenberg is CEO of Edgility Search where she supports executives and boards with leader transitions, governance and evaluation. Read more on her Forbes Business Council Executive Profile.

Related Articles