Having worked with numerous organizations on their succession planning processes over the past two decades, I’ve witnessed a wide spectrum of approaches.
On one hand, I’ve encountered well-structured talent management systems that are seamlessly integrated with business goals, yielding impressive results. On the other hand, I’ve seen ineffective processes that seem haphazardly assembled, resembling a rickety old bridge rather than the robust machinery that effective succession planning demands.
After all, succession planning is as vital as any other aspect of an organization’s sustainability and continuity. Currently, succession planning feels outdated—almost prehistoric. Take the Nine Box process, for example, which has been in use for decades with minimal adjustments to adapt to today’s rapidly evolving talent landscape. A Gallup CHRO survey revealed while two in three CHROs (64%) say their companies employ the 9 box grid for this purpose, only 9% strongly agree that it is an effective approach for their organization.
Despite the time, money and resources invested in categorizing leaders and conducting endless rounds of evaluation and discussion, the process often leads to the neglect of its primary goal: effective leadership development.
Addressing Succession Failures
As organizations begin to reevaluate the effectiveness of their succession planning processes, they must first understand why the current approach may not be meeting their needs. There are five specific failures to identify and address.
Failure 1: Prioritizing Titles Over Talent
At its worst, succession planning tends to prioritize replacement over meaningful development. The emphasis is often on identifying who is ready for a specific career level or job title, leading to a focus on progression rather than genuine progress.
This results in discussions centered around who fits a title, rather than considering the actual demands of the position and identifying the individuals best talented to meet those demands, both now and in the future.
Success Strategy: To prioritize talent over titles in succession planning, organizations should employ objective scientific assessments that evaluate employees based on their true talent. Objective and predictive assessments provide a clear, data-driven understanding of a potential succesor’s true talent.
In contrast, subjective tools such as 360-degree feedback, personality tests and manager ratings can lead to biases that undermine true talent. These assessments have, at times, destroyed careers and delayed promotions, allowing talent blockers to manipulate the system and hinder the advancement of capable individuals.
By utilizing advanced talent analytics, organizations can interpret assessment results effectively and forecast which employees are likely to excel in key mission- and operational-critical leadership roles.
Failure 2: Shrouding The Process In Secrecy
Traditional succession practices often operate in secrecy, creating an environment of speculation and uncertainty among leaders. Talent reviews typically focus on improving talent but tend to emphasize weaknesses, leading to a process that feels shrouded in confidentiality. As a result, leaders are left with limited information, prompting them to form their own assumptions about the succession process.
Success Strategy: While some confidentiality is necessary, decisions often appear to be made in a black box, fostering distrust. In contrast, an objective and transparent process clarifies expectations, eliminating whispers about high and low potential leaders. This transparency ensures equitable opportunities for all to leverage their talents and advance within the organization.
One effective way to enhance transparency in succession planning is by regularly updating the organization on key decisions and showcasing success stories. When there is a high level of transparency in the system, it encourages leaders at all levels to actively participate in their development, seek out key experiences, and pursue breakthrough growth, rather than leaving their future to chance (or fate).
Failure 3: Caring More About Past Performance Than Future Potential
Many succession planning systems are overly focused on processes—such as ratings, discussions and reviews that emphasize past performance. This leaves little room for development, coaching and future enablement.
Talent dashboards often display lagging indicators of performance while lacking leading indicators, which are better predictors of future success. Relying solely on performance ratings from managers, which are currently prevalent, does not provide a comprehensive view of organizational health and potential. And perhaps worse, according to a Gallup CHRO survey, only 2% think their performance management system works.
Although objective performance ratings are essential, as performance is a cornerstone of any succession management process, it’s important to remember the adage: “What got you here won’t get you there.” In today’s dynamic business, many playbooks have been rewritten. With the significant shift in what performance means today compared to five years ago, it’s crucial to revisit your performance ratings and rankings.
Success Strategy: An integrated approach that balances quantitative and qualitative inputs is essential for evidence-based decision-making on key succession priorities.
Incorporating leading indicators such as employee and customer engagement, leadership behaviors, cultural metrics and innovation is essential, in addition to traditional performance metrics like year-over-year growth, profitability and sales. By integrating these additional indicators with objective and predictive talent analytics, organizations can gain deeper insights into their leader’s overall performance and future potential.
Failure 4: Allowing Talent Hoarding
Talent is a strategic asset that must be leveraged to its fullest potential, much like any other asset within an organization. Unfortunately, many functional leaders today focus on safeguarding their talent within their own domains, missing opportunities where these individuals could make a broader impact elsewhere in the organization.
A more strategic approach is needed—one that prioritizes placing talent where it can drive the most significant impact, rather than merely advancing individuals based on traditional promotion pathways or immediate replacement needs within specific functions.
Success Strategy: By aligning talent management with the organization’s strategic goals, rather than just functional objectives, companies can create a more effective review process that truly serves the organization’s overarching interests.
Talent reviews should be a collaborative process, where functional leaders work together to identify the talent needed for the organization’s future. Leaders should engage in open discussions about talent placement strategies, even if they involve talent beyond their own functions.
Additionally, they should explore strategic talent alliances, encouraging collaboration among individuals from different functions on mission-critical and operational projects. The ultimate focus should be on advancing the organization’s mission, eliminating duplicative efforts and capitalizing on every opportunity for growth and innovation.
Failure 5: Limiting The Talent Pool
If you examine many talent pools within organizations, two common patterns emerge: they often consist of leaders or managers who are geographically close to headquarters and include long-tenured employees who have demonstrated their abilities over time. These individuals often show loyalty to the organization and, in many cases, allegiance to senior leaders who have placed them in the talent pool.
This illustrates familiarity bias or proximity bias, where individuals often prefer those who are closer to them, whether physically or socially, over those who are unfamiliar or more distant.
Success Strategy: In my article “Leadership Development Must Be Democratized,” I argue that today’s leadership development programs have become gatekeepers for an elite group of high-potential individuals, with upwards of $50 billion annually spent on HiPo programs.
As demographic shifts drive transformation within organizations, these changes must also be mirrored in the succession planning process. Organizations need to broaden their talent pools to include more operational leaders who may not be visible at headquarters. They should also incorporate younger leaders and managers who demonstrate promise and potential. Additionally, talent pools should be expanded to include individuals with diverse perspectives and backgrounds.
While I am not advocating for quotas, there should be a greater reflection of the organization’s evolving demographics. This means moving away from traditional notions of “who makes the list” and adopting a more strategic perspective on “who is needed to drive future growth and where.”
Avoiding The Pitfalls
To avoid the pitfalls of traditional succession planning, companies must focus on engaging potential leaders through development programs that not only enhance their skills but also strengthen their commitment to the organization. This involves creating opportunities for growth, offering mentorship, and providing real-world leadership experiences.
By integrating these elements into their succession planning process, organizations can fail-proof and future-proof themselves, ensuring they are well-prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow.