Why Succession Management Fails (and How to Fix It)

Succession planning is a critical aspect of organisational sustainability and leadership continuity. Yet the reality is that many successors do not successfully transition into their designated roles. This is not just a matter of chance - it is rooted in systemic issues within the nomination and development process.

Understanding why succession management fails is the first step to fixing it. The challenges are predictable, and they are solvable - but only if you are willing to look honestly at the process you currently have in place.

Challenge 1: Flawed nomination process

The succession nomination process is often flawed due to its limited scope and subjective nature. Incumbents are typically tasked with naming successors from their professional circle or current team, which inherently restricts the pool of candidates to a familiar few.

This approach narrows diversity and overlooks potential talent outside the immediate network. Using talent analytics can help businesses identify every possible successor for a specific role by applying clear criteria, making a larger pool of individuals visible for consideration.

Challenge 2: Inaccurate readiness assessment

Assessing a successor's readiness is exceedingly subjective in most organisations. The good news is that there are specific succession criteria that can accurately predict a readiness timeframe. This framework uses the concept of both distance (the current gap to the target role) and speed (the ability and willingness of the successor to close the gap).

When we talk about talent identification in succession, we are not just referring to skills or experience, but rather the fit between a person and the context in which they need to operate. HR's job is to identify talent quickly and accurately - and that requires a structured, multi-dimensional assessment approach.

Challenge 3: Lack of transparency

The absence of a concrete development plan for identified successors is a glaring oversight in many organisations. Fearing the creation of false expectations, companies often refrain from informing candidates about potential future roles.

This lack of transparency can result in identified successors leaving because they are unaware of the opportunity. Getting a successor ready for a role is like getting an athlete ready for a race. The coach can prepare the runner to the best of their ability, but it does not guarantee a win on race day. The successor needs to know they are in the race.

Challenge 4: Inadequate development

Even when successors are correctly identified and informed, development plans are often generic rather than targeted to the specific gap between the successor's current state and the requirements of the target role.

A common pitfall is that nobody is allocated the task of preparing the successor for their future role. The current incumbent is not the right person to develop their successor - they should be involved in knowledge transfer, but the developer should be the incumbent's manager or the person who will make the final hiring decision.

How to fix it: four actions

1. 1

   Broaden your nomination process: Use structured criteria and talent analytics to identify all possible successors across the organisation - not just those visible to the current incumbent.

2. 2

   Measure readiness with precision: Replace vague categorisations with a multi-dimensional assessment that measures both the distance to the target role and the speed at which the successor can close the gap.

3. 3

   Be transparent with identified successors: Manage expectations clearly. Inform successors of their status, explain what readiness means, and set honest timelines. The risk of transparency is far lower than the risk of losing them.

4. 4

   Assign a dedicated developer: Identify who is responsible for preparing each successor. Give them the tools, frameworks, and time to do it properly - and hold them accountable for the outcome.