For many executives, the concept of succession planning invites a mix of dread and avoidance. It is difficult enough to fill current vacancies. Anticipating the departure of a high-performing leader and preparing for a transition that could happen months or even years in the future feels nearly impossible. In most cases, these roles are held by individuals whose responsibilities have evolved well beyond their original job description. The idea of replacing them like-for-like becomes not only unrealistic but damaging.
The Metiss Group has worked with leadership teams to eliminate the ambiguity from succession planning. Through tools like The Job Scorecard™, we help organizations align future strategy with future talent. Our approach avoids the all-too-common trap of hiring for the past and instead builds forward-looking plans that guide development, selection, and accountability.
In this article, we’ll explore:
- Why Do So Many Succession Planning Approaches Fail?
- Why and How to Include Strong Incumbents and Stakeholders in the Planning Process
- Determine the Right Person for the Right Seat
- How to Modify and Adapt These Plans Over Time, if the Succession Event is Delayed
Why Do So Many Succession Planning Approaches Fail?
Let’s explore the most common approach. Joe is your CFO. Everyone LOVES Joe. He’s not only a fantastic CFO, right hand to the CEO, talent champion, corporate liaison to the board, but also has P&L responsibility for a plant several timezones away. If you lose Joe, you’re in a world of hurt. In fact, just reading this is probably making your stomach turn.
You need a succession plan for Joe. If Joe isn’t here, who can replace Joe? The honest answer: NO ONE! Not only would no one in their right mind accept all those responsibilities coming in from the outside, but the odds of finding someone good at all those things is almost zero. In fact, even Joe started as a normal CFO, then took on HR when everyone realized his passion for having the right people in the right seats, and developing talent. Little by little he was asked to take on the other responsibilities, but even Joe didn’t take them on all at once.
Fast forward to Joe’s retirement and you bring on Joe 2.0. Everyone’s first reaction? He’s not Joe!
The problem with this approach is that no matter how great the new person is, you’ve set them up for failure starting with the premise of replacing Joe. It’s the wrong premise.
The right approach is, when Joe isn’t here anymore, and based on where you see yourselves in the future, what’s the work that will need to be done by the CFO?
Why and How to Include Strong Incumbents and Stakeholders in the Planning Process
Let’s start with the why. Let’s be honest and admit, Joe had a lot on his plate. Other stakeholders like the CEO, head of operations, sales, may have wanted to ask for some additional support given some of their initiatives, but given everything Joe already was balancing, reasonable colleagues feel guilty asking Joe for anything more than he’s already doing.
These stakeholders have their work impacted by how well or how poorly the next CFO performs their function. If they can contribute to building what the new CFO role should include, the entire organization could benefit from their input, and the new CFO would be a welcomed addition providing what they have been wanting and needing for some time - instead of just being compared to Joe.
How you include stakeholders can make a huge difference. We strongly recommend building The Job Scorecard™ by having all the stakeholders together at the same time. Generally it should be a facilitated discussion or debate so everyone agrees on the tasks, priorities, how time is spent, and the success factors. The alternative just results in a diluted or disjointed deliverable.
Imagine if you were trying to create this CFO role. Of course you’d ask for the CEO’s feedback, and it makes sense to get input from the Controller, head of Operations, Sales, maybe some other departments. If you were asking them one at a time, each time someone mentioned something that wasn’t mentioned before, you’d have to circle back to see if the previous contributor(s) agreed; otherwise you would need to reduce it down to the common denominator, potentially missing a critical component only one person considered.
Getting everyone on the same page and getting complete buy-in from all the stakeholders is critical for success.
Determine the Right Person for the Right Seat
Perhaps the right phrase is to find the right people for the right seats. Once The Job Scorecard™ is created, the succession planning team can now evaluate the job individually by the 3-5 accountability categories. It’s possible you already have someone on your team who can do 3 or 4 of those categories, but the other one or two need to be off-loaded to a different person, or outsourced; it’s also possible, by looking at it this way you’ve identified the area the successor will need development before the succession event occurs.
By creating The Job Scorecard™ for critical roles, team members with high potential for succession can more easily be identified, their development plans can highlight specific career growth preparation, and you can provide challenges before a promotion to see how the individual develops and handles these challenges.
Additionally, when a high potential can view The Job Scorecard™ of the new role before accepting the promotion, they know more specifically what the expectations are for the role to match that up to their previous impressions of what the role might be. You might be surprised how many individuals might decline the opportunity when that clarity is provided.
How to Modify and Adapt These Plans Over Time, if the Succession Event is Delayed
Over time, the needs of the role could evolve or some of the people who were identified to fill certain aspects of the role could leave for whatever reason. In these cases, you might need to update the accountabilities, the priorities, percentage of time for each category, and/or the success factors. This could change who might be idal for that role, or the development the intended successor might need in that role.
Just imagine a marketing role you defined 3 years ago anticipating someone’s retirement in 3-5 years. There was no way to anticipate how impactful AI would be just in the marketing space today! So if someone were identified as a logical successor, they may now need to be developed to leverage AI more. Or at the very least, have a conversation about how open they were to leveraging AI in their work.
If someone left the organization in the meantime, or had been selected for a different promotion since they were first identified as a potential successor for your role, it may be time to consider and develop someone else.
In general, the approach to Succession Planning becomes much easier, when you start by looking at what work needs to be done in the future - not just replicating the person or the work of the past.
Takeaways
Succession planning should not be treated as a reactive exercise triggered by an impending departure. It is a forward-looking process that requires clarity, alignment, and discipline. Organizations that focus on replicating individuals set themselves up for disappointment. Those that focus on the future work that must be done, and engage stakeholders in shaping that work, are far better positioned to sustain performance and continuity.
With the right tools and conversations, succession planning becomes less about replacing people and more about building capability. When roles are defined clearly, and successors are developed intentionally, organizations gain the confidence to navigate leadership changes without disruption. This is not just a human resources function. It is a strategic leadership imperative.
