Where Traditional Succession Planning Falls Short

In Harvard Business Review’s article “Where Traditional Succession Planning Falls Short,” authors Jeff Rosenthal and Molly Rosen, co-CEOs of ProjectNext Leadership, argue that many companies spend significant time on succession planning but still find themselves unprepared when a senior leader leaves. Published July 22, 2025, the article opens with a familiar executive scenario: a senior finance leader exits unexpectedly, the company reviews its succession list, and no one has confidence that the named successors are actually ready.

For business leaders, the article is a timely warning: succession planning should not be a static annual exercise or a list of names beside key roles. It must become an active leadership-development system that prepares future leaders for the business challenges ahead. HBR summarizes the needed shift in four pivots: from replacement planning to future proofing, from calibration to preparation, from exercise to execution, and from leaders as talent assemblers to leadership producers.

Executive summary for business leaders

Overarching theme: Traditional succession planning often creates a false sense of readiness. Many organizations identify potential successors, discuss talent in annual reviews, and maintain leadership slates, but they do not consistently build the readiness, experience, judgment, and enterprise perspective required for future executive roles. The result is a gap between “having names on a chart” and having leaders prepared to step in with confidence.

The article’s message is especially relevant as leadership roles become more complex, volatile, and cross-functional. Succession planning should help companies anticipate future leadership needs, accelerate development, clarify accountability, and turn current leaders into active producers of future talent — not just consumers or hoarders of it.

Major takeaways

1. A succession list is not the same as succession readiness

HBR’s opening example shows the weakness of traditional planning: a company may have a list of possible successors, but when the moment of transition arrives, the CEO and executive team may still lack confidence in those candidates. That gap can lead to delayed searches, overloaded interim leaders, stalled momentum, and business disruption.

Business implication: Boards and CEOs should test whether successors are genuinely ready, not merely identified.

2. Move from replacement planning to future proofing

The article argues that companies should stop thinking only about who could replace today’s leaders in today’s roles. Instead, they should define the leadership capabilities the business will need next: digital fluency, enterprise thinking, resilience, transformation experience, stakeholder management, global perspective, or whatever the strategy requires.

Business implication: Succession planning should be tied to future strategy, not yesterday’s org chart.

3. Move from calibration to preparation

Many succession processes spend too much time rating, ranking, and debating talent and too little time preparing leaders for bigger roles. Calibration may help leaders compare candidates, but it does not automatically build the experiences, confidence, and judgment needed for executive success.

Business implication: Every succession conversation should end with specific development moves: stretch roles, exposure to the board, enterprise projects, coaching, crisis leadership, or P&L experience.

4. Move from annual exercise to ongoing execution

Succession planning often becomes an annual talent review rather than an operating discipline. HBR’s summary points to the need to turn the process into execution: clear actions, ownership, follow-up, and measurable progress.

Business implication: Succession readiness should be reviewed throughout the year, especially after business shifts, reorganizations, acquisitions, executive departures, or changes in strategy.

5. Leaders must become leadership producers

One of the article’s strongest ideas is that leaders should not simply assemble talent for their own teams. They should help produce leaders for the broader enterprise. That means developing people who may eventually move out of their current function, business unit, or reporting line.

Business implication: Reward leaders for building talent pipelines, not only for retaining top performers inside their own domains.

6. Succession planning should reduce dependency on external searches

External executive search can be valuable, but HBR’s opening scenario illustrates the risk of relying on it because internal successors were not prepared. When companies lack ready internal candidates, transitions can take longer and the organization can lose momentum.

Business implication: Companies should maintain both external market awareness and strong internal bench development.

7. CHROs and boards need a more active role

Related HBR research on CEO succession highlights that effective succession work benefits from structure, objectivity, and clarity, with a trusted CHRO playing an important role in avoiding common pitfalls.

Business implication: Succession planning should not be left only to the CEO or informal executive opinion. It needs disciplined governance.

8. Succession planning is a business-continuity issue

Poor succession planning affects more than talent strategy. It can create operational disruption, slow decision-making, weaken morale, burden interim leaders, and reduce confidence among employees, investors, and boards. HBR’s scenario shows how a leadership vacancy can quickly affect results and team momentum.

Business implication: Succession planning should be treated as a risk-management and business-performance priority.

Leadership talking points

Succession planning should answer one question: Who will be ready to lead the business we are becoming?

A list of successors is not enough; readiness must be built through experience, coaching, feedback, and enterprise exposure.

Boards should ask for evidence of successor development, not just names in a talent review.

The CHRO should be a strategic partner in succession governance, leadership assessment, and development planning.

Current executives should be measured partly by how well they develop future enterprise leaders.

Reflection questions

Do we have names on succession charts, or do we have leaders who are truly ready?

Are we preparing successors for the future business model or merely the current role structure?

Which critical roles would create the most disruption if the incumbent left unexpectedly?

Do our succession discussions produce real development actions, or only ratings and rankings?

Are leaders encouraged to develop talent for the enterprise, even when it means losing strong people from their own teams?

Does the board have enough visibility into successor readiness?

Where are we over-relying on external hiring because we have underdeveloped internal talent?

Potential action items

Create a future-focused leadership profile for each critical executive role, based on where the business is going.

Replace static succession charts with readiness plans that include experience gaps, development moves, timing, and accountable sponsors.

Review top succession risks quarterly, not just once a year.

Assign each executive a talent-development responsibility tied to enterprise succession outcomes.

Use stretch assignments, cross-functional roles, transformation projects, and board exposure to prepare successors before a vacancy occurs.

Ask the CHRO to build a succession dashboard showing readiness, diversity, development progress, role risk, and emergency coverage.

Test succession plans through scenario planning: sudden CFO departure, CEO transition, business-unit president exit, acquisition integration, or crisis leadership.

Recommended similar articles

Upgrade Your Company’s Succession Planning — A concise HBR tip adapted from Rosenthal and Rosen’s article, emphasizing the four pivots needed to create real readiness for leadership transitions.

The Pitfalls That Undermine CEO Succession Planning — A related HBR article based on board director research and interviews that identifies common CEO succession traps and highlights the role of an engaged CHRO.

Building Your Organization’s Next Generation of Leaders — A useful companion piece on developing internal leaders, preserving institutional knowledge, and building long-term leadership continuity.

How to Get Leadership Succession Right — An HBR podcast episode on Whole Foods’ CEO transition from founder John Mackey to Jason Buechel, including lessons on culture, authenticity, stakeholder listening, and internal leadership.

When Picking a New CEO, Ask Them for a Growth Plan — A practical HBR article arguing that boards should assess CEO candidates through forward-looking growth plans rather than relying only on past performance.

Succession Planning: What the Research Says — A classic HBR piece reviewing research on why many organizations remain underprepared for CEO succession.