Succession is more than a name in box

From optics to outcomes in leadership

For many organisations, the annual ritual of succession planning is in motion. End-of-year KPIs are calibrated, performance reviews are finalised, and bonuses are distributed. The data points are tidy, the nine-box grid is updated, and leaders walk away feeling like they’ve “ticked the box.”

But here’s the question: is this really succession planning, or just corporate optics?

The Paradox of Succession Planning

Most leaders agree that strong pipelines are essential for engagement, retention, and risk mitigation. Yet in practice, succession often feels less like leadership strategy and more like a political exercise.

We encourage leaders to think enterprise-wide, to support the “team behind the team,” and to build future capability. Yet systems still reward individual visibility, short-term wins, and narrow KPIs.

McKinsey (2023) found that while 85% of executives believe succession is critical, only 30% feel their processes deliver meaningful outcomes. Similarly, Harvard Business Review (July 22, 2025) noted that traditional approaches are out of step with today’s business realities and urged organisations to shift “from calibration to preparation” and from “exercise to execution.”

The Leadership Blind Spot: Leading Self

What rarely gets discussed is this: most leaders don’t consider their own succession plan. Unless tapped for promotion or moving on, succession remains an abstract concept.

At the C-suite level, this blind spot is amplified. Boards increasingly need more than one potential successor not a single “chosen one” because the right leader depends on strategy, market conditions, and timing. Succession is not a replacement strategy, its organisational resilience, it must be about developing pipelines of ready-now leaders for multiple scenarios.

This is where many organisations miss a critical opportunity to embed transparency into any component of any succession planning. Too often, potential successors are left guessing where they stand. They don’t know how they are being assessed, what gaps they need to close, or  how the organisation is investing in their readiness. Without this openness and clarity, succession planning risks creating disengagement instead of motivation and erodes accountability in the process.

Transparency changes everything. When organisations openly share the criteria, pathways, and development commitments tied to succession, leaders take greater  ownership of their growth. It builds trust, accelerates readiness, and signals that the process is fair.

Without this openness frustration grows. The “obvious internal successor” is overlooked in favour of an external hire or when successors are promoted without the right preparation, the outcomes can be challenging for all. Gartner (2022) reports that 60% of internal successors fail within 18 months when promoted without adequate preparation or support. That failure is not simply on the individual  it exposes the shortcomings of a system that lacked transparency, accountability and investment.

Why Annual Processes Fail

Traditional annual cycles create the illusion of rigour but often reinforce bias and stagnation.

Too often, succession planning rewards the loud and visible while overlooking quieter, high-performing contributors. This visibility bias narrows leadership pipelines, stifles diversity of thought, and weakens organisational resilience.

Most plans then end up in a drawer, revisited only when a vacancy appears. That’s not leadership strategy that’s paperwork.

Deloitte’s Human Capital Trends Report (2024) reinforces this point: static, annual processes are no longer effective. The organisations seeing results are those treating succession as a leadership discipline, with continuous updates, transparency, and accountability built into rhythms of business.

What Works Instead: Continuous and Accountable

One organisation I worked with made this shift. Rather than relying on annual calibration, they moved to quarterly talent updates, where leaders were held accountable not only for their own growth but also for the development of their people.

Talent outcomes were tied to KPIs. Progress was tracked, discussed, and shared. Leaders showed up: over 90% engagement every quarter because the process was transparent, continuous, and aligned with real business outcomes.

The result? Trust grew. Potential was surfaced earlier. And leadership accountability became cultural, not procedural.

The Missing Piece: Coaching Through Transitions

Here’s the truth: succession planning fails without self-leadership. Leaders cannot guide others through transition if they haven’t navigated their own.

This is where coaching makes the difference turning uncertainty into readiness. Coaching equips leaders:

·       Build clarity about what’s next.

·       Develop resilience when outcomes don’t go as planned, promotions are not guaranteed.

·       Anticipate not just the technical demands of a role, but the strategic and relational ones.

·       Lead authentically while navigating organisational politics and bias.

From Optics to Outcomes

Succession planning is too important to be reduced to optics. To truly prepare organisations for the future, leaders need to:

• Shift from annual calibration to continuous accountability.

• Build pipelines of potential successors, not just anointed favourites.

• Be transparent with leaders about their development journey.

• And most importantly lead themselves first, so they can authentically lead others.

Succession isn’t about filling a chair. It’s about building leaders including yourself who can thrive in whatever future unfolds.

At Worth Coaching, I partner with senior leaders to navigate leadership transitions and succession planning with clarity, presence, and resilience. If you’re preparing for your next chapter, or accountable for building your organisation’s leadership bench, coaching can accelerate readiness and create impact where it matters most.