Succession planning may be happening quietly inside organizations, but it is playing out loudly in the headlines. CEO exits, surprise transitions, founder handoffs, and board reshuffles are constant reminders that leadership continuity is not a theoretical exercise. It is a strategic imperative.
Succession planning is one of the clearest windows into how an organization thinks about its future. When it is done well, it creates confidence, momentum, and a strong sense of possibility for the leaders coming next. When it is done poorly, the cracks show up quickly in hard-to-fill roles, quiet attrition, and a leadership bench that cannot keep pace with the demands of the business.
And yet, even in organizations that invest heavily in leadership development, succession often lives in the background until a transition is suddenly at hand. That paradox was front and center in our recent Succession Planning Roundtable discussion in Los Angeles with executive leaders from a variety of companies.
“Succession planning isn’t urgent until it becomes urgent.”
“Tenure doesn’t equal readiness.”
“Leadership is a distinct skillset.”
“A succession plan is a vote of confidence in the future, not a replacement chart.”
Together, these reflections point to a shared reality across industries. Many organizations still treat succession as a periodic, replacement-driven exercise, something to revisit when a role is about to open. But leadership roles are changing faster than traditional succession models can keep up. The real question is not just who could step in if someone left tomorrow. It is readiness for what? What kind of leadership will the organization need next, and how do we build a bench that is ready enough for that future?
Below are the key themes we heard from CHROs and senior HR leaders, and the mindset shifts they believe modern succession planning requires.
- Succession Isn’t Urgent Until It Is
Succession planning tends to sit stubbornly in the “important but not urgent” category. Leaders are focused on quarterly goals, transformation agendas, performance commitments, and the reality of constant competing priorities. Development and succession can feel like work that can wait, until suddenly it cannot.
The risk is that succession does not wait for the “right time.” When a critical leader exits and there is no clear succession pipeline, the costs can be severe. Decision-making slows, authority gets murky, roles stay open too long, recruiting costs become exorbitant, and momentum slips at exactly the wrong time.
In other words, succession is often invisible when things are stable, but highly visible when continuity breaks. One takeaway from the room was simple. Resilience depends on treating succession as a proactive operating rhythm, not a last-minute response. The organizations that stay resilient are the ones that build succession into how they operate every quarter, treating it as an an always-on system. The importance of this has been well documented – companies that engage in ongoing succession planning and have strong leadership pipelines financially outperform their peers.
- Succession Is a Living System, Not a One-Time Event
Succession planning should not be reduced to a list of names under boxes on an org chart. It is a living system that answers two questions at all times:
- Who might come after me?
- Who might I follow?
Organizations with strong succession systems normalize movement and transition as part of ongoing career development discussions. They create multiple pathways to leadership rather than a single “next person up” narrative.
This shift also places responsibility where it belongs. Succession is not something leaders simply approve or support. It is something leaders actively build over time, through consistent development, visible stretch opportunities, sponsorship, and real exposure to enterprise challenges.
“A leader’s job is to grow other leaders, not just deliver results.”
When that expectation becomes part of the culture, succession stops being an HR exercise and becomes a strategic advantage.
- Tenure Does Not Equal Readiness. Define “Ready Enough.”
Many succession approaches still assume that tenure, company loyalty, or past performance automatically translate to readiness for larger roles. The leaders in the room challenged that assumption directly.
Tenure does not equal readiness because leadership is a distinct skillset. The next role is a different job, likely demanding a new range of skills to be effective: an enterprise lens, comfort with ambiguity, influence across boundaries, and the ability to lead through uncertainty. Great performance in one context is valuable data, but it is not proof of readiness in another.
This connects to a subtle but important mindset shift the group emphasized. Too many organizations delay promoting from within until they find a “ready now” candidate who meets every requirement. Waiting for “ready now” perfection stalls renewal, frustrates high potentials, and increases flight risk.
Instead, leaders advocated for moving toward “ready enough.” Build a bench of leaders who can step in, stretch, and grow with the right support, even if they are not perfect replicas of the person before them.
- “Readiness for What?” Future-Proofing the Role
If “ready enough” is the mindset shift, the anchoring question is: readiness for what?
Succession planning breaks down when we plan for yesterday’s job. Too many organizations define readiness against historic success profiles or the outgoing leader’s strengths. But roles are changing rapidly, driven by new technologies, evolving business models, shifting workforce expectations, and constant disruption. Planning for the past is a quiet way to miss the future.
Before asking “who is next,” organizations need to ask:
- What capabilities will this role require in three to five years?
- What context will the next leader inherit that today’s leader did not?
- How is the business evolving, and what kind of leadership will it demand?
Once those future needs are clear, readiness becomes measurable in a more meaningful way.
“Agility and accountability are key indicators of potential.”
Agility reflects how quickly leaders learn, adapt, and recalibrate. Accountability reflects whether they own outcomes, navigate tradeoffs, and build trust. Together, they signal who can scale when the job shifts. These capacities are often more predictive than linear career paths, particularly in a world where leadership demands are shifting in real time.
- Transparency Builds Trust and Retains Potential
A concern that surfaced in multiple forms was the lack of transparency in succession processes. When criteria and pathways are unclear, two risks show up at once.
First, employees can be confused about who is truly leading now, especially in matrixed environments or founder-led companies where authority can be diffuse. Second, high-potential leaders can become unsure whether they are actually being invested in for the future. Even when they are being developed, the lack of clarity leaves them in a waiting room.
Transparency does not mean making promises. It means being clear about what future roles require, how people build those capabilities, and how potential is assessed, then having honest dialogue about timing without over-committing. It also means honest dialogue about timelines and development goals, without over-committing.
When leaders are open about the path, high potentials stay engaged and can more easily see their future within an organization. When the path stays vague, opacity can turn succession into an “early departure program,” developing people who leave because they cannot see where they fit. Even if the future is unclear, organizations must have career coaching conversation with their high potential talent; otherwise, their competitors certainly will.
- Succession Is Both Human and Business
One of the most grounding takeaways from the roundtable was that succession is not solely a strategic process. It is also a human one, and it can be influenced as much by emotion as by logic.
Succession touches identity, legacy, aspiration, and anxiety. For founders or long-tenured leaders, it can raise fears about relevance or control. For emerging successors, it can create uncertainty about timing, opportunity, and trust. For organizations, it can reveal tension between continuity and reinvention.
The leaders in the room were clear. Effective succession planning holds both realities at once.
“Succession planning must be viewed as a human process and a business process.”
When organizations honor the human side through clarity, dialogue, and thoughtful development, business outcomes follow. Ignoring it stalls even the best-designed plans.
Conclusion: The Mindset Shift We’re Leaving With
The leaders in our roundtable were not looking for a new template. They were asking for a new mindset. One that treats succession as a continuous system, defines readiness against the future rather than the past, and develops leaders who are “ready enough” to grow into what comes next.
A few closing takeaways we heard repeatedly:
- Treat succession as an organizational capability, not an episodic event.
- Start with the future role. Readiness for what?
- Build benches of leaders who are adaptable and accountable, not simply tenured.
- Use transparency to build trust and retain your successors.
- Hold the human reality alongside the business need.
Succession planning done well is one of the clearest signals of organizational health. In a world of constant change, it may be one of the most important leadership investments an organization can make before it needs it most.