GE had a slug fest between three candidates before they chose Jeffrey Immelt, Xerox had a clear, transparent strategy before choosing Ursula Burns and HP had to scramble when Mark Hurd stepped down. So what have we learned about CEO succession planning from these Fortune 500 companies? That one thing is for sure - you need to have a succession plan for top management. That is called planning for the future. However, even though the three scenarios above are completely different, they provide us with three things an organization must do to ensure effective succession planning:

1. Identify what are the critical roles in the business and ensure that the organization has a plan for those roles (who will take over, when, who is involved and what is the transition plan)
2. Be open and transparent in communicating the selection process, the criteria and the time line for those critical roles. Everyone in the company should have advanced notice of when a new leader will be taking over.
3. Know the future vision and direction of the company. This will help with the selection process so you can match the leaders' skill set with the direction of customers and the business.

It is important to remember that these lessons apply to any business, not just the ones we read about in the newspaper.

I wrote a few weeks ago about how Mark Hurd resigned from HP...well he has now re-surfaced as co-President of Oracle. This is a huge coup for Larry Ellison. Not only does Oracle get the guy who ran the show for one of their biggest competitors, they also hire one of Ellison's good friends and a seasoned executive. When Hurd was asked to resign from HP, Ellison said that the HP board had made one of the worst personnel decisions he had ever seen. So now Ellison not only gets someone who ran one of his competitors, he also gets to stick it in the eye of the HP board of directors.

What may be lost in all of this could be the fact that Hurd will be co-President. Not only will he have to give over the spotlight to Ellison, he will need to share decision-making with Safra Katz. I am not sure that this will work because on the surface, accountability is muddy. Who has the final say? What if Hurd and Katz don't agree, did Ellison just sign up to be a glorified referee? Either way, if I was HP, I would be worried. One of their main competitors just got a whole lot stronger.

Watching how this plays out might be a great example of what (not) to do when setting up accountabilities within your organization.

Mark Hurd recently resigned as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, but that is not news anymore. Nor is it really news that he resigned due to the submission of expense reports supposedly used to quiet a female contractor who accused Hurd of sexual harassment. The real news is the $40m severance package that Hurd will receive for his resignation. Under Hurd's tenure, he stressed the importance of implementing a stronger business code of ethics and got rid of anyone that did not follow that code. Usually, those people were asked to leave and given no severance. So why does Hurd get a large severance package for breaking those same rules? Because CEOs are playing in a different game than everyone else. We see it with the size of the compensation packages, we see it in the size of the severance packages and we see it in the reckless disregard that some CEOs have for the rules that we are all supposed to follow.

HP under Hurd saw great success over the past five years so it is not surprising that the rules for him are different. I have no problem with CEOs being paid ridiculously high wages because of the pressure they are under and the higher standard we hold them to, but to blatantly treat them differently when they do wrong does not send the right message to the business community or those that look up to these leaders. The message that money can overcome any wrongdoing will send us down another slippery path that leads into the ethical abyss. This is not the best strategy for an organization that is primed for success in a very competitive marketplace.