Choose your Successor Carefully

Introduction

For those who, like me, are political junkies, this year’s Presidential race in the United States has been both fascinating and tumultuous.  The attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, followed by the decision by President Biden not to seek re-election, has presented a never-ending array of surprises, twists and turns.  American politics is never dull, quite unlike Canadian politics which varies from dull, to boring, to an exercise in somnambulism.

What I have found particularly intriguing from a Human Resources perspective are the different approaches both Presidential candidates have used in selecting their respective Vice-Presidential running mates.  It provides a study in contrasts, and a unique insight into how different organizations and CEO’s approach the task of succession planning.

Mirror Image Vs. Fill in the Gaps

Prior to his selection of his running mate Donald Trump had a wide-range of potential candidates who were rumoured to be under consideration.  Trump could have selected an African-American candidate such as South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, or former HUD Head Dr. Ben Carson, which would have cemented inroads in the minority community.  He could have chosen a woman such as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, or former South Carolina Governor and Republican opponent Nikki Haley.  He could have placated the Republican Party establishment by reaching out to a more mainstream moderate such as North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, or a political veteran such as South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.

Instead, Trump selected someone from the mid-western United States, an area where his party traditionally does well.  While he opted for someone younger and relatively junior in experience (i.e. Ohio Senator J.D. Vance), he also chose someone who, many feel, is a younger version of himself.  On the surface Vance’s upbringing is different from Trump’s.  Vance came from humble roots, experienced a lot of adversity in his youth, served in the military, went to a prestigious law school, and worked in business.  However, he mirrors and reflects a lot of Trump’s philosophical approach to politics.

By contrast, Trump’s Democratic challenger, VP Kamala Harris, apparently has a much smaller field of potential candidates who are being vetted for the role.  All five are experienced individuals.  Four (i.e. Josh Shapiro from Pennsylvania, Andy Beshear from Kentucky, Tim Walz from Minnesota, and Roy Cooper from North Carolina) are Governors.  One, Mark Kelly, is a U.S. Senator from Arizona.

Different Parties, Different Approaches

Why were there more prospective Republican candidates under consideration as Trump’s VP? Why did the Democrats select from a much smaller pool of potential candidates?  Why were most of the Democratic candidates existing Governors?  Most importantly, which Party has the tactical advantage going into the November elections?

The selection of a Vice President tells us a lot not just about the different approaches of the two political parties, but also, about how leaders and organizations screen and vet candidates for important roles.  In the case of the Republicans, when Trump initially ran for office he needed to garner the support of key constituencies.  One of those constituencies was evangelicals, and another was traditional mid-westerners.  Selecting former Vice President Mike Pence fulfilled both of those mandates.

Fast forward eight years, and it is a different dynamic.  Trump’s hold over the Republican Party is complete, and more traditional Republicans such as Judd Bush and Mitt Romney have been silenced or dispatched to the sidelines.  To secure his legacy Trump selected someone who was ideologically committed to his MAGA agenda, and will likely “toe the line”.

By contrast, Kamala Harris’ elevation to the top of the Democratic ticket was unexpected.  In selecting her running mate she needs someone who is stalwart, experienced, probably male, and someone who could appeal to traditional Democratic voters and independents.  The field of candidates she has drawn from to vet for the #2 position is much smaller than the Republicans.  Moreover, the time that she has been taken to announce her running mate has been longer than was expected.  Two of her finalist candidates (i.e. Beshear and Shapiro) are younger than Harris, whereas Mark Kelly and Tim Walz are approximately her age, and Roy Cooper is older.  

Insights into Two Different Processes

In the case of the Republicans, ideologically conformity was a predominant consideration in Vance’s selection.  Trump also wanted someone younger who would appeal to younger voters, particularly, suburban voters.  While I am sure the former President considered input from other advisers, the final selection of J.D. Vance clearly was Donald Trump’s to make. I’m sure if J.D. Vance were African-American, or female, or from another part of the country, I’m guessing the decision would have been the same.

The fact that four of the five prospective Democratic contenders are Governors tells me that a key consideration in identifying prospective VP candidates is experience in managing and heading a government. The fact that all are white males tells us she wants to gender balance the ticket.   The fact that four of them (i.e. Kelly, Shapiro, Cooper and Beshear) are from purple swing states signifies that she is seeking someone who can carry a region.  The fact that two of them (i.e. Beshear and Shapiro) have experience as prosecutors indicates she is looking for someone who can negate Vance’s messaging in a future television debate. 

The differences in the two approaches speaks directly to the style of leadership both parties and leaders intend to convey if elected.  In the case of Trump, the leadership style will be centrist with an active and focused Executive.  The governing agenda will be heavily driven by ideology, not appeasement.  Compromise and collaboration will be replaced by alignment and a clear focus on the path forward.

Insofar as the Democrats are concerned, the style of leadership would be more collaborative with an emphasis on extensively evaluating risks and options.  Collaboration will be strong, and benefit-cost analysis will likely be a determining factor in decision-making.  Decisions will take longer than with the Republicans, and that is so consensus can be fully explored.  Wherever possible, efforts will be made to placate different groups and stakeholders.

The Connection to Human Resources

How an organization builds its replacement capability is a function of what they want to achieve.  One thing I have noticed throughout my career is that leaders, like Trump, often hire and promote individuals who reflect a similar style and disposition.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except for one important factor.

A good leader needs to possess self-awareness.  We all are imbued with skills and talents.  Some of us are generalists, whereas others are specialists.  Some are extroverts, whereas others are introverts.  Some possess expertise in finance, whereas others have a marketing background.  Understanding one’s strengths and weaknesses, and looking for successors who complement us, but who can also compensate for deficiencies that we may possess, can be positive. Where it can be particularly insightful is when exploring different options, or challenging established norms and expectations.

A case in point is Mike Pence.  In his role as Vice President Pence was the polar opposite of Trump.  He was reasoned, logical, calm and deeply religious.  Pence’s presence gave credibility to Trump, and while many traditional Republicans were offended by Trump’s vulgarities and behaviour, Pence’s presence made it seem tolerable.  The differences came to a head during the January 6^th, 2021 riots on Capitol Hill when Pence defied his boss and endorsed Joe Biden’s election.  His defiance is probably one of many reasons Pence is no longer on the ticket despite his experience and character.

Three times in my career I had to hire people into my department as HR Assistants.  Before embarking on this exercise I took stock of myself, and recognized that I was essentially an introvert, and felt that someone who was more of an extrovert would be helpful.  I also lacked a background in line banking, so I opted for people who possessed this experience.  In each case I hired people who weren’t identical to me in perspective or skills, but brought something else to the table.  I’m happy to say I made three good hires.

A Final Thought….

So, which approach is better?  The answer really depends on what one wants to achieve.  Some will argue for a more active Executive branch with clear and definitive leadership.  Others may argue that in a pluralist society taking the time to seek consensus is pivotal.

My guess, for what it is worth, is that Kamala Harris will select Josh Shapiro as her running mate.  He’s bright, popular, successful, has an established political pedigree, and represents a swing state.  Unlike Vance, who mirrors Trump, Shapiro is a unique contrast to Harris:  a conservative Democrat who happens to be Jewish, and who will appeal to both younger and established voters.  

As for who will win in November, I think at this stage it is a toss-up.  A lot will come down to those pivotal half a dozen states, many in the Great Lakes region and southeast.  How voters connect with each Party’s ticket, and who resonates with them the most, will likely be the determining factor.

As I said earlier, American politics is never dull!

 

Update:  August 31st

Well, I was close! Josh Shapiro was, indeed, one of the two finalists for the role of VP.  In the end, Kamala Harris selected Tim Walz, the Governor of Minnesota.  What I found striking about his selection was not only his contrasting style to Harris, but the fact that the man represents a lot of traditional American, Mid-Western values. Walz appears well-liked, and his appointment likely won’t “ruffle any feathers”.  Time will tell whether it was the best selection.