The most important division head is retiring in eighteen months. He knows every client, every process, every informal agreement that keeps the business running. There is no successor. There isn’t even a serious discussion about who it could be. And the closer the date gets, the less it is discussed, because the topic is uncomfortable, and everyone hopes a solution will be found.
Succession rarely fails due to a lack of candidates. It fails because it starts too late, is treated as a personnel decision instead of a strategic process, and underestimates the most valuable asset: the knowledge that is nowhere documented.
A management executive whom I advised faced exactly this situation. His sales manager, with the company for two decades, had announced his departure in a year and a half. When I asked who would replace him, the executive replied, “We’ll worry about that when the time comes.” When the time came, the full extent of the oversight became clear. There was no internal candidate prepared. The external search took months. And when the successor finally arrived, the sales manager had already left, and with him, the knowledge of client relationships that was not in any database. The division took two years to recover.
This is not an isolated case, but a predictable pattern. Succession is treated reactively in most organizations, not proactively. Three levers change that.
The crucial mistake is timing. Succession is treated as an event that occurs when someone resigns or retires. In reality, it is a process that must begin years before the change. Ram Charan, one of the most influential advisors on leadership succession, describes the leadership pipeline as a continuous task: those who do not systematically build their next generation of leaders will be surprised by every vacancy, even though the gap was foreseeable.
In practice, this means identifying critical positions before they become vacant. Which key roles would jeopardize the business in the event of a sudden failure? For how many of these roles is there a prepared successor? This question should not be asked every five years, but should regularly be an integral part of strategic leadership work. An organization that only knows who holds key positions today, but not who could hold them tomorrow, has a risk that does not appear on any balance sheet yet can be existential. In risk management, this is referred to as key-person risk: How many critical positions depend on a single person whose absence would render the organization inoperable? Where this number is one, the organization is not stable, but fragile.
| Reactive Succession | Proactive Succession |
|---|---|
| Starts when someone resigns | Starts years before the change |
| Individual personnel decision | Continuous strategic process |
| Focus on quick staffing | Focus on preparation and knowledge transfer |
| Knowledge leaves with the person | Knowledge is systematically transferred |
| Successor starts alone | Transition phase with parallel operation |
A division head whom I supported in succession planning for her key positions took a smart step: she identified not one, but two potential successors for each critical role and began to develop them purposefully, years before the positions became vacant. She gradually transferred greater responsibility to them, involved them in strategic decisions, and gave them opportunities to grow into the role before they officially took it over. When one of the incumbents unexpectedly left the company, the transition was completed within weeks.
The reason why candidate development is so often neglected is not ill will. It is a mixture of lack of time, denial, and an unspoken discomfort. Building one’s own successor means confronting one’s own finite tenure in the role. Some managers also fear making themselves redundant if they empower someone to take over their task. This concern is understandable, but it reverses the logic of good leadership. A manager who has not developed anyone who could replace them has not proven their indispensability, but has failed in a leadership task.
Honesty about the job requirements is important here. The best technical expert is not automatically the best successor, just as the longest-serving employee is not. The question is not who deserves it, but who will best fill the role in the future. This distinction sometimes requires uncomfortable decisions that must be made early and communicated openly.
The most frequently underestimated aspect of any succession is the transfer of implicit knowledge. A position can be handed over in a day. The knowledge that an experienced manager has built up over years cannot. Client relationships, informal networks, the understanding of why certain things are the way they are—none of this is in any manual or process documentation.
This knowledge cannot be secured through handover protocols, but only through shared time. A parallel operation, in which the departing and the new incumbent work together for a defined period, is therefore not a waste, but the most effective form of knowledge transfer. How long this phase must last depends on the complexity of the role. For an operational position, a few weeks may suffice. For a position with complex external relationships and strategic responsibility, several months are appropriate. Those who cut corners here are saving in the wrong place, because the damage of a failed knowledge transfer far exceeds the cost of a generous transition period. The reality in companies shows: the most expensive mistake in successions is not the wrong personnel choice, but the too-short transition.
Just as important as formal duties is the introduction to informal networks. The departing incumbent should actively introduce their successor to important internal and external partners, personally and with clear backing. A successor who starts without this introduction must laboriously rebuild relationships and trust that the predecessor had established over years. Especially in the first few months, it is decided whether the transition will succeed.
First: For how many of your critical key positions is there a specifically named, prepared successor? If the answer is “for very few,” you have a risk that grows with each passing month.
Second: Which position in your area of responsibility would create the biggest gap in the event of a sudden failure, and what knowledge would be lost that is nowhere documented? Start there.
Third: When was the last time you spoke to the person who might one day take over your own role? If that person does not yet exist, building a successor is your next leadership task.
Succession is not a personnel issue that can be resolved shortly before the change. It is a strategic process that takes years, and the most valuable thing transferred is not the position, but the knowledge associated with it.
Those who only plan succession when the date is set have already failed in the actual leadership task. Succession is not the last decision of a term. It is one of the first.
Develop Talent – Succession begins with systematic development, long before a position becomes vacant.
Interim Management – If succession comes too late: how to bridge the gap without creating dependency.
All Insights can be found in the overview.
Proven tools and models for self-application are available under Solutions.
If you want to take these thoughts further for your company, a no-obligation initial conversation is worthwhile.
