|
|
Reprinted from the September 15, 2006 issue of MANAGER’S LEGAL BULLETIN, a widely read employment law newsletter that communicates legal guidelines to managers through real-life dialogue and concrete examples. Click here to view a sample issue, get more information or sign up for a risk-free subscription. Succession Planning Causes Promotion Commotion All good managers plan for their department’s future, including identifying and developing talented employees to be promoted to higher-level positions. Succession planning can include providing extra training or experience to the employees you’re grooming. Of course, it can also include claims of discrimination from the employees who don’t get that extra attention. EMPLOYEE PLANS FOR THE FUTURE Jeremy Hartley was on the fast track to upper management. He had been promoted to the rank of manager, and then to regional manager, and was told that he was next in line to become a director. In the meantime, Acme underwent a restructuring that resulted in the creation of a new position, assistant director of product development. Since Hartley had previous experience in product development, he thought for sure that this was his shot at becoming a director. Much to his surprise, his manager, Andy Howe, promoted Colleen Carew, who had little experience in product development. EMPLOYER HAS DIFFERENT PLANS When Hartley questioned Howe, the manager explained that he and the current director of product development had identified Carew as an employee who was creative, strategic, and capable of eventually succeeding the product development director. Howe promoted her into the assistant job in order to provide her with the necessary background experience she would need for her eventual leadership position. Unconvinced, Hartley filed a sex discrimination lawsuit under Title VII, claiming that, by promoting Carew and denying him the assistant director position, Howe discriminated against him. A district court disagreed, ruling that the manager was entitled to consider long-term succession planning in deciding whom to promote. The court found that Hartley failed to present evidence that the company had a “reason or inclination” to discriminate against men or that there was something “fishy” about the employer’s selection of a female rather than a male for promotion. Warning: Although the court in this case deemed succession planning a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to promote a particular employee over a more qualified one, succession planning can be seen as discriminatory if it appears that only certain groups of employees are put on an advancement track while others are largely ignored. SUCCESSFUL SUCCESSION PLANNING Although “succession planning” is typically used to groom employees for higher-level positions, the same principles can be used to prepare for a vacancy at any position. Don’t just think of this process as a means to replace departing employees; think of it also as a way to develop and retain valuable, talented employees.
More information about this publication/Order a subscription |
|
Alexander Hamilton Institute, Inc. 70 Hilltop Road, Ramsey, NJ 07446-1119 USA Phone: (800) 879-2441, (201) 825-3377 Fax: (201) 825-8696 Copyright © 2006 Alexander Hamilton Institute Home | Publications | Free Reports | Employment Law FAQs | Labor Law Forms | Audio Conferences |