​While a primary purpose for any succession plan is increased bench strength, and a luxury of highly qualified internal candidates to step into executive vacancies, you also want your organization to succeed into the future. That means people growing in place and becoming more influential as they do so. While there will always be those people who are motivated by pay and title, there are many more who are motivated by the satisfaction they experience in their job from day to day. It is possible for individuals to make greater contributions without having to be placed in a different role. Focus on contribution rather than title.
 
To clearly communicate the purpose of your succession strategy, frame the actual activity rather than an end game, which could change over time. The activities of succession planning—talent identification, management, development, evaluation, and retention—all speak to an investment in organizational leadership. I’ve seen several organizations simply call their programs “leadership development.” Investing in targeted leadership development work, both individually and organizationally, shows your key employees that you value their contribution, their potential, and that you are interested in retaining them for broader responsibility into the organization’s future.
 
Succession planning is more important now than ever. But the stakes are much higher than individual advancement. What is at risk is organizational sustainability. A secession of talent threatens that sustainability. By investing in your current leaders to succeed today, you ensure that your organization will succeed into the future.

​Several years ago, a member association I worked with launched a cohort-based leadership development program for its members. Emerging leaders from member organizations could apply for acceptance into the program—with their own organization’s support, of course. During their cohort experience, they would conduct site visits to benchmark organizations, both within and outside of the field, they would be mentored by a leader from another member organization, and they would conduct action learning projects in their own organizations. Alumni of the program end up mentoring future participants.
 
Most of the participants have taken promotional opportunities within their home organizations. Others, however, have been hired away to other member organizations. That latter result is not necessarily all bad. The association was very honest and forthright up front. They promoted this program as benefiting the membership at large, not one sole member organization. And a strong association benefits its members as a group. In the larger, long-range picture, the overall membership will benefit from stronger leaders who remain in the field.

​I recently worked with one tech organization whose founder had planned to retire in one or two years. He wanted to determine if there was a successor for his role among the current leadership team. I advised him to use an organizational psychologist to facilitate the individual assessments. Following the assessment and feedback, I would then step in and work with each individual as well as with the group to leverage strengths from the assessment results as well as address opportunities for improvement. For those areas where there was uniform need for improvement, we would work together as a group.
 
As can happen with such assessments, however, the feedback report can be taken as the final word on the individual. Close the book. End of story. As can also happen with such assessments, feedback can be perceived as enough to improve. Insight, it is assumed, will result in changed performance. In this particular case, both mindsets came into play.
 
To date, the organization has not undertaken such an investment, and is leaning toward Plan B, which is to entertain offers from competitors and other organizations to take over the company. Some of the current leadership may survive a sale; others may not.