The article reads: “For a CEO taking office after the abrupt departure of a predecessor, lining up a successor might seem the least important item on a formidable list of must-dos. The replacement CEO must get control of the situation that caused the demise of the previous CEO, win over demoralized employees and unhappy investors and put a plan into place. He or she must build a team to tackle the problems and take action. Yet planning for a successor can go a long way toward reassuring employees and investors and steadying the company. And if the new CEO isn’t interested in the task, the board should be.”

Later, the executives were asked: what were the candidates’ best and worse decisions? What are their strongest and weakest leadership qualities? Whose capabilities are the most suited to meet the company’s strategic needs? Whose temperament, passion and work style best match the company’s culture and strategy?

Dennis Carey and his co-authors explained that while covering the story, the media focused on the wrong things. They wrote: “What was missing in the articles and blogs is perhaps the key lesson for corporations: a company would do well to establish parallel approaches to succession. Insiders often get the corporate top job- in fact, more than 80% of the current Fortune 100 CEOs were selected from within the companies’ ranks- yet the high turnover among CEOs is testament to the frequency with companies pick the wrong insider. A set of parallel approaches allows a company to gather comparable data about internal candidates, with each process filling in the information gaps left by the other.”

In an article, he wrote:

“A company would do well to establish parallel approaches to succession. Insiders often get the corporate top job- in fact, more than 80% of the current Fortune 100 CEOs were selected from within the companies’ ranks- yet the high turnover among CEOs is testament to the frequency with which companies pick the wrong insider. A set of parallel approaches allows a company to gather comparable data about internal candidates, with each process filling the informational gaps left by the other.”

“In working with leading companies, we have developed a window on how boards can get it right when closing a new chief executive,” Carey says. “This is the critical fiduciary responsibility of the board, ensuring the steady flow of effective leadership in corporate America.”

“Whether by sudden tragedy, poor performance, merger, takeover or simple retirement, every CEO will leave his or her position. The corporate boards that take on a systematic predictable and transparent process in choosing the next leaders of the organization build stronger cultures, clarify the company’s strategy and deliver value to all stakeholders, including employees,” Carey said.

He said: “A company would do well to establish parallel approaches to succession. Insiders often get the corporate top job- in fact, more than 80% of the current Fortune 100 CEOs were selected from within the companies’ ranks- yet the high turnover among CEOs is testament to the frequency with which companies pick the wrong insider. A set of parallel approaches allows a company to gather comparable data about internal candidates, with each process filling in the informational gaps left by the other.”

He explained that “On top of the general problem of harnessing the energies of a company comes the simple fact that a CEO may be very unfamiliar with some core responsibilities.  Most new CEOs have never chaired a board meeting.  Some may never even have attended one. Most have never had to forge a working relationship with a board-selected ‘lead director.’ Outside the boardroom, issues such as advertising, human resources, the press, Wall Street analysts, mergers, and board member recruitment, which consumer large amounts of a CEO’s time and attention, are activities that most senior executives below the top job may have dealt with on only a very limited basis.”

A review on their work stated that the authors “offer the insiders’ prescription for success in succession. Directors will savor the advice on how to pick the right CEO; executives will relish the advice on how to be chosen; everyone will delight in seeing how it’s really done at companies from Cigna and Delta to GE and Sunbeam. Graphically narrated by search specialists at the top of the game, CEO Succession tells how to put the right leadership in place for results.”

He explains that “on top of the general problem of harnessing the energies of a company comes the simple fact that a CEO may be very unfamiliar with some core responsibilities. Most new CEOs have never chaired a board meeting. Some may never even have attended one. Most have never had to forge a working relationship with a board-selected ‘lead director.’ Outside the boardroom, issues such as advertising, human resources, the press, Wall Street analysts, mergers and board member recruitment, which consume large amounts of a CEO’s time and attention, are activities that most senior executives below the top job may have dealt with on only a very limited basis.”

The authors are both experienced business people with years of expertise in the field.  Dayton Ogden is chairman of Spencer Stuart, where he served for nine years as the firm’s chief executive.  His search consulting practice focuses on CEO succession and board recruiting for a large range of international clients.  He is on the board of the American Business Conference and is secretary and a director of Project HOPE.

It is understandable that a CEO might not be too anxious to name his or her successor while he/she is still functioning in his capacity as leader. Human nature dictates that “few chief executives want to encourage a bright youngster to covet their job too early.” Nevertheless, Dennis Carey recommends that a healthy company which wants to remain that way needs to think about its future early and develop a succession plan that will allow the transfer of power to be as smooth and painless as possible.