If your CEO asked you to name their successor tomorrow, would your talent data give you a confident answer?
Or would it be the same people as usual: the longest-tenured executive, the best-performing department leader, or the executive top management trusts most?
Many organizations have succession plans. Few can say these leaders will be fully equipped to handle the challenges ahead.
The hard part matters. Many organizations have succession plans that look good on paper but are never tested in practice, with inconsistent assessments and assumptions.
The challenge for HR directors and talent management professionals isn’t just in finding high potentials; it’s in finding high potentials who can become CEO. It’s about defining it so it can be measured; it’s not the organization’s potential of its future workforce.
The Difference Between Performance and Potential
A common problem with succession planning is mistaking strong performance for strong potential.
An individual employee can regularly perform effectively and demonstrate knowledge. These accomplishments are good examples of work performance in the current job. However, a more senior role requires strategic thinking, a broader approach, stakeholder influence, and leadership in uncertainty.
“Imagine that someone is running your Finance department and can provide accurate reports on time and has very strong internal controls in place.” This person is identified by senior management as a potential Finance Director of the future.
The actions could be warranted. Before putting employees on the succession plan, the organization should assess whether an employee can inform the board about financial risk, constructively challenge assumptions, influence business decisions, and make decisions under uncertainty.
Without it, the organization might mistake a job failure for evidence of another.
Thus, potential should be seen as an opportunity to explore, rather than an assessment of employees who already show successful performance.
How the 9-Box Grid Can Help and Mislead
The 9-box grid is a common tool that is associated with talent management. Generally, it gauges the employee’s performance and viability for future growth.
The nine categories that emerge from the process then allow organizations to identify strong performers and potential future leaders ready for greater responsibility, as well as employees who need support and development.
When planned deliberately and appropriately, the framework can shape talent discussions, help HR teams prioritize development areas, and serve as a tool for identifying talent development initiatives. It becomes a problem when organizations treat the grid as a quantifiable measure instead of a starting point for discussion.
For instance, two managers can evaluate someone on two different criteria. Excessive work: They can compare excessive dedication with motivating strategic thinking and others’ growth. Ratings can also reflect personal achievement, confidence, and unconscious bias.
The matrix may also affect ratings. If the organization doesn’t clearly define the parameters, the matrix may reflect personal preference instead of actual performance in management skills. The validity of a high-potential assessment is only as strong as the support and reasoning behind it.
Hidden Risks in Talent Reviews
Without considering their assumptions, succession planning can be especially fragile when senior leaders evaluate candidates. Three risks should be considered.
1. Familiarity bias
Managers might prefer workers with the same type of work. In the interim, however, skilled folks in more discreet jobs may have been overlooked, pushed off the organizational line, and denied to the organization, even though they bring unique and valuable assets to the table.
2. Confusing confidence with capability
Staff who talk a good game can seem more confident than quieter or more introspective staff members.
Confidence can help, but it isn’t the same as competence. Organizations are about behavior.
3. Assuming behavior is a fixed quantity.
An employee labeled high-potential today may not be prepared for a particular leadership role several years later. The business world is changing; career needs are changing as well, and opportunities are also diverse. Someone who isn’t ready for the job now may later acquire the skills needed for the role they apply for.
Therefore, succession planning must be re-evaluated regularly; it shouldn’t be just a list of employees by rank.
Building a More Evidence-Based Succession Plan
Organizations looking for better leadership continuity will find that removing managerial judgment from their operations isn’t the answer. Instead, support judgment with criteria, multiple sources of evidence, and deliberate development.
● Outline desired outcomes for the desired position.
Determine what kinds of skills are necessary for the new position first. The strengths a country manager, CFO, and HR director require may differ; the assessment should reflect the actual responsibilities and strategic challenges of each job.
● Draw on several sources of evidence.
Check behavior and combine it with performance records, appropriate assessment tools, feedback from colleagues, and evidence that comes out of a stretch piece of work. No single person can explain aspects of potential leaders.
● Challenge assumptions during talent reviews
Inquire from managers about why such an individual is believed to be ready for bigger responsibilities. What do they have to support the assessment? Are there any skills that aren’t being used? Are similar employees assessed using the same criteria?
These questions highlight inconsistencies before they affect key outcomes.
● Turn assessment into development.
Design individual development plans for identified capability gaps. Give employees opportunities to develop the skills they need through cross-functional assignments, mentorships, and executive coaching.
● Review readiness regularly.
Identify which employees can take on roles immediately and which may require further development. Keep succession plans up to date to reflect changes in priorities, business needs, and personal situations.
Where Executive Coaching Fits
Leadership assessment can identify strengths and development needs, but that’s not enough to prepare someone for a more challenging role.
By working with a lead coach, prospective leaders can also gain insight into their decision-making patterns, deepen self-understanding, understand interpersonal dynamics, and build awareness of behavioral factors holding them back.
Coaching can also offer a supportive, structured approach for leaders transitioning from a technical/functional role to a more organizational one. Still, it should be tied to a well-defined development goal. It cannot replace clear selection judgment, a level playing field, or leadership development opportunities.
The aim is to create a viable leadership development pathway backed by data, not just hope.
A succession Plan is only as Strong as Its Evidence
Succession planning is about continuity in the organization. It can help businesses prepare for a leadership transition, reduce reliance on individual executives, and build capacity to manage future expansion. That’s not the same as a succession plan, though.
Effective succession planning challenges the organization’s assumptions, evaluates employees on what they will be expected to do in the future, and prepares the talent it needs.
The most important thing is not how many employees are on the talent dashboard that have high potential.
It’s whether the organization can identify convincing evidence that demonstrates those employees’ potential to become future leaders, and what they’re doing to ensure they have that potential.
A Question for HR Leaders
How much of your organization’s succession planning is based on evidence, and how much is based on reputation?