Why do succession plans fail? The management team point of view
I bet that I’m not the only one who’s been contemplating this topic. In this article my aim is to cover three reasons why succession plans fail. I’m lucky, as a consultant I have had the honor of meeting a whole bunch of seasoned decision-makers who have both succeeded and failed in their succession planning.
The root cause behind failed succession plans is surprisingly similar regardless the branch or the company size.
Let’s dig a bit deeper.
Oswin (2015) defines succession plan as follows: "To build the talent pipeline needed for succession, use a data-driven and targeted approach to identify peoples’ development needs and learning styles, and what motivates them.” Clutterbuck (2012) builds on Oswin’s definition, emphasizing that succession planning is a “dynamic process of aligning employee aspirations and talents with the constantly evolving needs of the organization and of providing employees with the resources and support they need to grow into new roles”.
That is the theory. The reality can be a bit different, depending on the view. Succession planning should be communicated organization-wide, this is not solely a HR matter, neither a CEO one. Boards should be included as well, the lack of top-down support can be fatal.
Now it’s time to head back to the initial question: Why do succession plans fail?
My hypothesis is plain and simple, succession plans do fail because of the following three main reasons:
1. Succession plans are sugar-coated and static
It is quite natural to concentrate on the list of requirements for a given role instead of focusing on what really is needed to be achieved in the role. What is essential? And what is nice, but does not affect the bottom line? Furthermore, I’ve noticed that succession planning takes years, not months. The world around us changes and so do the requirements for a management team member. Succession plans should be adaptive when it comes to the changing nature of work. The management team approach should be brutally honest, fact-based and proactive.
2. Succession plans emphasize on C-level successors - secrecy and narrowness dominate
When it comes to this second mistake, I recommend organizations to think like a clever chess player. The game should be played by planning several moves ahead. Succession planning on every organizational level should form a seamless entity and this plan should be managed in its entirety. Gaps on the lower organization level ladders can be avoided, transparency can be increased and talented employees with growth potential stay motivated. Everybody wins when succession plan on the whole spans throughout the organization and unnecessary leavers can be avoided. The management team approach here is to be open, inclusive and strategic.
3. Succession plans are designated for one successor or position at a time
And finally, this third mistake can be avoided by taking a broader scope. Too much of a personification can be a bad thing even in succession planning. Variety tackles the problem that arises when a talented employee leaves the organization without warning. An internal talent pool of candidates, a feeder group of qualified candidates, should be launched and maintained. Previous success does not guarantee a future one, therefore all succession candidates should be evaluated against the criteria of the new role, in order to guarantee the high-performing level even after the promotion. The management team approach here is to think outside the box reducing at the same time the risk of brain flow out of the organization.
When taking these pitfalls into consideration, the organizations’ management team gets more versatile and agile whereas the whole organization benefits from proactivity and transparency. Succession planning is a dynamic process, it needs to be nourished and updated on a regular basis.
What do you think? I’m more than happy to discuss this extremely interesting topic with you.
Writer: Tomi Arppe