Succession readiness: names on a chart are not a succession plan

Succession charts are useful. They make dependencies visible and prompt an organisation to consider who might step forward. Their weakness is the apparent certainty a name can create. A successor labelled “ready in two years” may have been judged against today's role, while the strategy is changing the role itself. Another may have strong potential but need experience the organisation has not yet arranged. A third may be capable but unavailable when the transition occurs.

Succession readiness is therefore a question about both the person and the future mandate. The board should understand what the role will require, what evidence supports each internal option and what would happen if the transition came earlier than planned.

Describe the future role

An incumbent's success can dominate the picture. Yet a successor may face a different business: new markets, a changed capital structure, a transformation or a more complex stakeholder environment. The organisation should identify the outcomes and decisions likely to define the next phase before treating the incumbent's career as the template.

This does not mean predicting the future with false precision. It means making several plausible scenarios explicit. Which capabilities would matter in all of them? Which would matter only if one strategic path is chosen? Which aspects of the role could be redesigned around a strong internal candidate, and which are non-negotiable?

Assess evidence rather than promise

Potential is important, but it is not the same as demonstrated readiness. A credible review asks what decisions the person has made, under what conditions, with what results and what support. It examines how the individual works with peers and governance bodies, not only how well they perform within their function. It also distinguishes evidence the organisation has observed from assumptions based on reputation.

Where evidence is missing, the response need not be rejection. It may be a development assignment, exposure to a different market, a broader remit or a structured period of acting responsibility. Development becomes more useful when tied to a specific future decision rather than a general aspiration to make someone “more senior.”

Plan for more than one clock

Succession has at least three time horizons. A planned transition permits development and market comparison. An accelerated transition may require an internal leader who can step in before being fully prepared. An emergency transition requires continuity immediately. One chart often compresses these into a single label.

A stronger plan asks who can carry the role tomorrow, who could be appointed after deliberate preparation and where an external search would be necessary. It also considers interim authority: who makes decisions while the organisation assesses its longer-term choice? A good emergency arrangement protects the business without being mistaken for a permanent appointment.

Readiness should be reviewed periodically because both the person and the role change. A development assignment may create new evidence; a shift in strategy may make a previously strong successor less suited to the future mandate. Updating the judgement is not inconsistency. It is the point of maintaining a living plan. The board should record what has changed and why, so that labels do not acquire a life independent of the evidence behind them.

Bring the external market into view

Internal succession should not be assessed in a vacuum. An external leadership benchmark can clarify what experience is available and what the organisation would gain or lose by appointing internally. It need not lead to a search every time. It can strengthen confidence in an internal candidate, reveal a development gap or show that the role itself should change.

The board can use five questions to test whether its plan is real:

• Are the success criteria based on the future strategy or the current incumbent?
• What evidence supports each named person's readiness, and what remains untested?
• What experience can be developed before the transition, and who owns that work?
• What happens if the role becomes vacant next month?
• When would external market evidence improve the decision?

A succession plan is credible when it describes decisions, evidence and actions. Names are necessary, but they are only the beginning of leadership continuity.