We’ve lost count of how many succession plans we’ve seen sitting quietly in drawers.
They’re perfectly formatted, polished with all the right names, timelines, and colours. A tick-box exercise delivered during a strategy offsite or signed off in a board meeting. And then, forgotten.
But when the moment comes, when a CEO suddenly exits, when a Chair needs to hand over, when a senior executive steps aside, everything stalls. The person named in the plan isn’t ready. Or they’ve left. Or the board hesitates because the risk feels too great. The succession plan becomes irrelevant at the exact moment it was meant to matter.
This isn’t rare. In fact, it’s the norm. Too many organisations approach succession as an HR deliverable rather than a strategic imperative. It gets lumped in with policies, not embedded in live business dialogue. It’s treated as future insurance, not a current development priority.
And here’s the real trap. Everyone thinks they’re being responsible by having a plan. But unless it’s being tested, reviewed, and actively lived, it’s probably giving a false sense of security.
What we’ve seen in our work is that succession is most dangerous when it’s been quietly resolved in theory. It gives the illusion of control. But behind the scenes, there’s no exposure, no stretch, no testing. The person listed on paper as successor might never have chaired a board meeting, handled a crisis, or spoken to an investor. That’s not readiness. That’s risk.
There’s another layer to this. Most boards and executive teams are too polite when it comes to succession. There’s a cultural tendency, particularly in this region, to avoid uncomfortable conversations. No one wants to question the readiness of a relative or a loyal senior leader. No one wants to challenge the preferred successor. So instead of real preparation, we get vague confidence. They’ll be fine. They just need a bit more time. We’ll deal with it when we need to.
And that’s how a plan becomes a liability.
The strongest succession strategies we’ve seen are alive. They evolve. They’re debated in the boardroom. The names change. The readiness is tested. There are deliberate assignments and leadership moments built in, creating real chances to prove capability under pressure. When that’s happening, you can feel it. There’s energy, momentum, visibility. People know who’s being developed, and why.
It’s not about favourites or internal politics. It’s about resilience. A company that’s serious about growth or legacy doesn’t just prepare for succession. It uses succession to sharpen its leadership bench. It pushes future leaders into the unknown with safety nets, but also with real stakes.
We’re working with several groups right now where succession has shifted from being a private topic to a strategic one. Boards are involved. Executive leaders are leaning in. CFOs and HR leads are aligned. And most importantly, successors are being seen, not just named. They’re presenting to shareholders. Handling difficult conversations. Getting feedback from external advisors. These aren’t rehearsals. They’re live trials.
If your succession plan hasn’t changed in two years, or if you can’t remember the last time, it was seriously discussed at board level, you probably don’t have a plan. You have a file.
And if the person on that file hasn’t been tested in the role, even temporarily, they’re not ready. Not yet.
The fix isn’t complicated. But it does take courage. It means being honest about who’s really ready, and who isn’t. It means having the difficult conversations early. It means treating succession as a leadership tool, not a risk to avoid.
Because when the time comes, and it always does, no organisation wants to be caught scrambling. You want to move forward with clarity and confidence, knowing your next leader is not just named, but ready.
That only happens if the preparation starts now.
