Succession Planning Without the Buzzwords: What Actually Works in Preparing Future Leaders
Succession planning is one of the most talked-about yet least operationalized processes in organizational leadership. Many companies treat it as a formality—updating a spreadsheet of potential successors once a year—or lean on vague development plans that fail to produce real readiness.
Effective succession planning is not about checking boxes or naming names. It is about building the systems and learning paths that equip people to step into new roles with competence and context. In evolving organizations, especially those facing rapid change or growth, succession planning must be fluid, evidence-based, and deeply embedded in operations.
The Research Behind Readiness
A meta-analysis published in Personnel Psychology found that internal leadership development programs correlated positively with both individual performance and organizational outcomes, especially when combined with experiential learning and structured feedback (Collins & Holton, 2004).
Meanwhile, research from the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) shows that only 14 percent of organizations are confident in their ability to replace key leaders. The gap lies not in talent scarcity but in the lack of visibility, investment, and infrastructure that succession planning requires (CCL, 2022).
True succession readiness is not about identifying future leaders, but preparing them. And that preparation should not begin when a vacancy appears. It begins with exposure to challenge, access to feedback, and opportunities to make real decisions.
What Works: Three Evidence-Based Practices
1. Role Rotation That Mirrors Reality
Stretch assignments are one of the most validated tools for leadership development. But they must be designed with intention. Assignments should expose emerging leaders to real accountability and decision-making complexity—not just temporary task forces.
At McCormick & Company, high-potential employees rotate through different business units in 12–18 month cycles. These rotations are not just observational. Each one includes ownership of a strategic project with executive sponsorship. The result is a cohort of leaders who understand the company’s operations across verticals and can lead with context.
This aligns with research from The Leadership Quarterly, which found that cross-functional exposure improves not only adaptability but also leader credibility across teams (Dragoni et al., 2014).
2. Transparent Talent Calibration
One of the most common reasons succession plans fail is because decision-makers disagree on who is actually ready. Subjective impressions, recency bias, and political dynamics often skew evaluations. To counter this, organizations need transparent and structured calibration sessions.
Adobe uses a “talent snapshot” tool that combines performance data, peer feedback, and readiness assessments to guide calibration conversations. Managers are trained to identify both immediate successors and high-agility learners who may not yet have the experience but show strong trajectory indicators.
This process reduces bias, increases visibility for underrepresented talent, and clarifies what “readiness” looks like for each role.
3. Embedded Development in Daily Work
Formal training programs are rarely enough. Succession planning succeeds when development is embedded in how people lead, decide, and learn each day.
This means redesigning team rituals to include coaching moments, using performance reviews to surface growth areas relevant to future roles, and giving real-time feedback that helps people calibrate toward stretch goals.
LinkedIn, for instance, uses a “70-20-10” model across its leadership development programs: 70 percent on-the-job experience, 20 percent coaching and mentorship, and 10 percent structured learning. Managers are held accountable not only for business results but for developing bench strength within their teams (LinkedIn Learning Report, 2023).
Avoiding Common Pitfalls
Don’t Rely on Static Plans: Succession should be a living process, not an annual document. Revisit plans quarterly and adjust based on business priorities and talent shifts.
Don’t Confuse Potential with Readiness: High performers are not always equipped to lead. Use role-specific competencies and scenario-based assessments to test decision-making, not just output.
Don’t Treat It as HR’s Job Alone: Succession planning must be owned by business leaders, with HR acting as facilitator. Otherwise, it remains disconnected from strategic reality.
Conclusion
Succession planning does not require more jargon. It requires more discipline. Organizations that invest in real preparation—not just name identification—build stronger pipelines, weather transitions more smoothly, and retain their top talent longer.
By anchoring leadership development in daily work, using evidence to inform readiness, and designing experiences that accelerate growth, organizations can stop planning for succession and start building it.
References
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Personnel Psychology, 57(1), 71–110.
Center for Creative Leadership. (2022). State of Leadership Development Report.
Dragoni, L., McShane, M. K., Vankatwyk, P., & Stanger, T. L. (2014). Developing executive leaders: The relative contribution of cognitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of work experience in predicting strategic thinking competence. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 843–854.
LinkedIn Learning. (2023). Workplace Learning Report. https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-learning-report
