Most CEOs I chat to have a view on their direct reports, and not always a positive one. What interests me is how confident they are about who could step up if one of those people left. I’d want to know what sits behind that confidence before relying on the succession plan.
The most useful succession question is whether someone could do the future job, with the support and time the business can realistically provide.
That sounds straightforward. It becomes harder when the person is well liked, has been loyal for years and has already been told they are the likely successor.
I think this is where succession discussions need more honesty. You can recognise someone’s contribution and still be uncertain about their readiness. Leaving that uncertainty unspoken is unfair to the person as well as risky for the business.
Define the job they would inherit
Start with what the role will require when the appointment is made. The current incumbent may have built the job around their own strengths. A successor might inherit a different strategy, a larger team or a more demanding board.
Take a head of finance stepping towards finance director. Strong technical work is relevant evidence. It does not settle whether they can handle a funding discussion, challenge the chief executive or make a difficult recommendation when the information is incomplete.
The same applies to a senior HR leader moving into a chief people officer role. Running a function well and contributing to decisions across the whole business are related, but the exposure is different.
Write down the situations that will test the successor. “Commercial” is too broad to assess. “Can explain the workforce implications of an acquisition and recommend where to invest” gives you something to investigate.
Separate uncertainty from a demonstrated gap
Sometimes the person cannot yet do an important part of the role. Sometimes they have simply never had the opportunity to show whether they can.
Those situations need different responses. A lack of board exposure might be addressed through a specific assignment. Repeated difficulty making decisions under pressure may require a longer development period, and might affect whether the role is the right destination at all.
An assessment should help you distinguish between them. Bring together evidence from the person’s work, structured conversations, relevant exercises and people who have observed them in comparable situations. Assessments can add useful information, but no single test should carry the decision.
Make sure the external standard is sensible too. You are comparing capability for your role, rather than chasing an imagined candidate who has every strength and no weaknesses.
Make readiness specific
A label such as “ready in two years” can hide a lot. Why two years? What needs to happen during that time? What would cause you to change the judgement?
I would rather see a statement like this: “Could take the role after successfully leading the integration programme, demonstrating board-level judgement and agreeing support for the first year.”
That creates a development plan you can discuss. It also gives you a reason to revisit the decision if the evidence changes.
Use a simple record for the most important requirements:
| Future role requirement | Current evidence | What still needs testing | Opportunity to test it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Influence the board | Has presented management information | Can recommend a difficult course of action | Own a board paper and the discussion that follows |
| Lead through uncertainty | Has delivered established processes | Can set priorities without a clear precedent | Lead a defined project with incomplete information |
| Build the leadership team | Has managed a stable team | Can address a capability gap | Take responsibility for a senior appointment or development decision |
This is an illustrative assessment record. Replace the requirements with the situations your future role will actually face.
Check what the business can support
A promotion with development support can be a good decision. It depends on the nature of the gaps, the risk of the role and the capacity of the people providing that support.
A chief executive who is already stretched may struggle to coach a first-time executive through a demanding transformation. A strong chair or experienced colleague might help, but their availability needs to be agreed rather than assumed.
There is also a difference between appointing someone into a role they can grow into and putting them into a role where the gaps will be exposed immediately. Timing matters.
Before naming somebody as the successor, ask them whether they want the job. The status may appeal more than the work. They may have a different view of their next move, or a constraint you have not discussed.
Your next succession review should leave each person with a clear judgement, the evidence behind it and a specific next step. If the answer remains uncertain, record what would resolve it. That is more useful than moving the name into a different box.