Call Us +1 224-415-2491

Category: Talent Assessment

  • So, You Think Your Talent Review is a Conversation?

    So, You Think Your Talent Review is a Conversation?

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    The 4D Framework: Issue 3 of 5 – Diagnose

    Last week, I wrote about the first D in my 4D Talent Continuity framework: Design.
    If the architecture is misaligned, succession fails before the first name is discussed.

    This week, we move to the second D: Diagnose. This is where many succession efforts unravel.

    Diagnose is not about completing a 9-box and casually discussing it.


    It is about determining, with discipline, how much leadership continuity risk actually exists.

    And that requires executive courage.

    What Diagnose Is Really For

    A rigorous diagnostic process answers three hard questions:

    1. If this leader left tomorrow, what would it cost us?
    2. How ready is the identified successor, in months not sentiment?
    3. Where are we exposed without admitting it?

    When done well, talent review becomes a risk assessment exercise. When done poorly, it becomes a reputational and ego negotiation.

    Boards assume the former. Too often, they are getting the latter.

    Failure Modes CHROs Recognize

    In my experience facilitating executive talent reviews, the breakdown rarely comes from tools. It comes from behavior.

    Here are the patterns that distort truth:

    • Talent hoarding. Executives protect high performers to avoid short-term disruption, weakening enterprise depth.
    • Inflated “high potential” labels. When too many leaders are categorized as future-ready, the designation becomes politically protective rather than predictive.
    • Vague readiness language. “Ready soon” without a defined time horizon masks real succession gaps.
    • Avoidance of difficult calls. Underperformance is softened. Potential is misunderstood. Risk is reframed as loyalty. Calibration becomes compromise.
    • False bench strength. A single successor named across multiple roles creates the illusion of depth while multiplying exposure.

    None of these are HR mechanics. They are leadership behaviors. And they materially increase risk.

    The Financial and Governance Implications

    An executive vacancy in a critical role can cost millions in lost momentum, strategic delay, and search expense. A mis-promotion can cost more.

    When the board asks, “How strong is our bench?” they are not asking about sentiment.
    They are asking about continuity under pressure.

    Diagnose is the discipline that answers that question honestly.

    What Rigorous Diagnosis Actually Looks Like

    Strong executive teams:

    • Anchor discussions in business impact, not personality
    • Define readiness in concrete time frames
    • Distinguish performance from potential
    • Assess probability of loss alongside impact of loss
    • Surface second- and third-order ripple effects of promotions

    They treat succession review as a continuity audit, not a popularity exercise.

    Clarity can feel uncomfortable. But comfort does not protect the enterprise.

    Next week’s issue focuses on Develop.

    Executive teams either address succession risk with targeted development, or they defer it and hope stability holds. Boards notice the difference.

    #SuccessionPlanning #CHRO #LeadershipContinuity #TalentStrategy #ExecutiveLeadership #BoardGovernance #RiskManagement

  • Your Succession Plan Is Only as Strong as Your Development Discipline

    Your Succession Plan Is Only as Strong as Your Development Discipline

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Part 4 of a 5-Part Series on the 4D Talent Continuity Framework: Develop

    In the first issue of this series, I introduced my 4D Talent Continuity Framework: Design, Diagnose, Develop, Defend.

    • Design ensures the system, practices, and tools are built to address real business risk.
    • Diagnose reveals how exposed the organization actually is.

    In case you missed it, last week’s issue focused on Diagnose, the discipline of conducting talent reviews and talent calibration that surface real succession risk rather than organizational optimism.

    Once risk becomes visible, the next question is unavoidable:

    What are we doing to close the gap?

    That is the work of the third D: Develop.

    And this is where many succession plans fail. They don’t fail because organizations lack good intentions, but because development is treated casually rather than rigorously.

    Why Development Often Breaks Down

    In most companies, the talent review ends with a list of successor candidates and a few vague development notes. The system assumes progress will follow. In reality, several predictable breakdowns occur.

    Weak Individual Development Plans (IDPs)
    Development plans often default to classroom training, online modules, or conferences. These activities may build knowledge but rarely build leadership capability.

    Research on adult learning consistently shows that leaders develop primarily through experience, not instruction. The widely cited 70–20–10 model suggests that roughly 70% of leadership development comes from challenging assignments, 20% from coaching and relationships, and 10% from formal training (Lombardo & Eichinger, Center for Creative Leadership).

    When IDPs emphasize the 10% and neglect the 70%, readiness does not improve.

    Successor Candidates Are Never Told They Are Being Developed

    Some organizations avoid informing successor candidates that they are part of the pipeline. The rationale is understandable: leaders worry about creating entitlement or promising roles that may never materialize.

    The downside is significant.

    When high-performing leaders do not understand that they are being invested in for larger roles, they often interpret development assignments as additional workload rather than strategic preparation. Motivation drops, and retention risk increases.

    Other organizations take the opposite approach and explicitly tell successor candidates they are being prepared for future leadership roles. This can increase engagement and commitment, but it also carries risk if advancement does not materialize.

    In practice, the most effective approach is transparent investment without guaranteed outcomes: communicating clearly that the organization is developing the individual for broader leadership responsibility while avoiding promises tied to specific roles.

    Successor Candidates Are Already Overloaded

    Another predictable failure occurs when organizations assign development on top of already unsustainable workloads.

    High performers often carry the heaviest operational responsibilities. When development activities are layered onto full workloads, the message is clear:

    “Grow into the next role on your own time.”

    The result is predictable. Development stalls, burnout increases, and the very leaders the organization hopes to retain begin considering external opportunities.

    Development That Never Leaves The Classroom

    Formal training has value, but it rarely changes leadership behavior by itself.

    What accelerates readiness is experiential leadership exposure:

    • Cross-functional strategic projects
    • Enterprise initiatives with visible impact
    • Temporary leadership of unfamiliar teams
    • Stretch assignments – Not impossible but challenging
    • Direct coaching from senior executives

    These experiences place successor candidates in situations where judgment, influence, and resilience are tested in real time.

    Adults learn leadership the same way pilots learn to fly: through guided experience, not theory alone.

    The Hidden Barrier: Accountability

    Even when organizations design strong development plans, execution often fails because cross-functional assignments are difficult to negotiate.

    The dynamic is familiar:

    • The direct manager wants the successor candidate focused on current team deliverables.
    • HR identifies development opportunities but lacks authority to enforce participation.
    • The employee cannot realistically manage both workloads without structural support.

    As a result, the most valuable development experiences never happen.

    In mid-sized companies, this tension can only be resolved at the executive team level.

    When development assignments are framed as enterprise investments rather than optional favors between departments, priorities change. The CEO and CHRO must signal clearly that preparing future leaders is a shared responsibility across the organization.

    Without that alignment, development remains theoretical.

    The Cost of Development Failure

    Organizations often underestimate the financial consequences of weak development execution.

    Leadership readiness gaps lead to:

    • Expensive external searches for roles that could have been filled internally
    • Mis-promotions when candidates are elevated before they are prepared
    • Delays in strategic execution while leaders ramp into new responsibilities

    Research from Gallup and Center for Creative Leadership suggests that failed leadership transitions and executive turnover can cost organizations 1.5–2 times the leader’s annual salary once search costs, lost productivity, and disruption are considered.

    For senior leadership roles, the real cost can reach into the hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars depending on the scope of the role.

    Development is not a learning activity.

    It is risk mitigation.

    What Rigorous Development Looks Like

    Organizations that build strong leadership pipelines treat development with the same discipline they apply to strategy execution.

    They:

    • Create specific, time-bound development plans for successor candidates
    • Ensure development includes visible, cross-functional leadership experiences
    • Pair experiential learning with coaching from senior leaders
    • Protect the time required for development rather than adding it as extra work
    • Hold leaders accountable for developing talent beyond their own teams

    When this happens, succession planning shifts from theoretical readiness to demonstrated capability.

    Next week, we turn to the final discipline in the framework: Defend.

    Because identifying and developing strong leaders is not enough. Organizations must also protect them from external poaching, professional burnout, and the pressures that drive high performers out the door.

    Succession planning does not end with development.

    It ends when leadership continuity is secure.

  • The Title Trap is Sabotaging Your Leadership Pipeline

    The Title Trap is Sabotaging Your Leadership Pipeline

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    We’ve all been there. You spend months preparing for the annual talent review. The Senior Leadership Team is in the room, the HRBPs have prepped the managers, and the 9-box grids are ready. But as names are placed on the board, a subtle and dangerous trend emerges: You are planning for a company that no longer exists. Your leadership pipeline is at risk.

    Early in my career, I made this mistake. I focused the room on titles; i.e., finding the next VP of Sales or the next Head of Operations. I realized too late that while we were filling boxes, we were ignoring the Capabilities Gap. The HRBPs hadn’t pushed the senior leaders to define the skills of 2029, and the leaders (unprepared for that level of strategic depth) simply defaulted to what they knew: “Who is the best version of the current incumbent?”

    The “Tyranny of the Urgent”

    Why do senior leaders miss this? It’s not a lack of intelligence; it’s the Tyranny of the Urgent. Executives spend their days firefighting – customer crises, emergency requests, and the “disruption of the hour.” When they finally sit down for a strategic talent review, they aren’t thinking about the technological shift of 2027; they are thinking about who can help them survive Monday.

    Because of this, talent reviews often become a “replacement exercise” rather than a strategic planning summit. We solve for stability today at the cost of survival tomorrow.

    Read more about why most succession plans are weaker than leaders think.

    The Title Trap Most Companies Fall Into

    McKinsey research indicates that fewer than 30% of leadership transitions are considered truly successful. One of the important reasons for this failure is the “The Title Trap”. What is it?

    1. Leadership skills sets have shifted massively in just a few years and will continue to change (see LinkedIn’s 2025 Workplace Learning Report)
    2. We have not evolved the succession planning process to account for the new leadership skills requirements.
    3. The results is that we promote people based on their mastery of today’s job title rather than tomorrow’s demands.

    By doing succession planning using titles, instead of future-focused skills and capabilities, organizations are making a high-stakes bet on a “lagging indicator”. No smart business leader makes strategic decisions based on lagging indicators.

    The “Title Trap” in Action

    The VP of Operations: A Case Study in Skill Obsolescence

    The 2020 Skill Set (The “Old” Mastery)The 2026 Skill Set (The “New” Requirement)
    Supply Chain Stability: Managing vendor relationships and physical logistics.Predictive Resilience: Using AI and real-time data to pivot supply chains before a disruption occurs.
    Fixed Efficiency: Improving the “bottom line” through traditional Lean/Six Sigma processes.Dynamic Agility: Leading cross-functional teams through rapid business model pivots and digital transformations.
    Command & Control: Directing large, centralized teams from a corporate headquarters.Distributed Influence: Managing high-performance, asynchronous global teams across multiple time zones and cultures.
    Functional Expertise: Being the smartest “Ops” person in the room.Strategic Data Governance: Interpreting complex data sets to make ethical, tech-forward business decisions.

    If you promote this Director to a VP role today, based on their 2020 expertise, their ability to manage a warehouse and a budget, they will likely fail. They have 100% of the old skills, but 0% of the 51% that changed. They are great at the “job” as it used to be, but they don’t have the Learning Agility or the Digital Fluency required to lead the “job” as it is now. This is exactly how the Title Trap creates failure: the name on the door stayed the same, but the work inside the room became unrecognizable.

    My 4D Process: A New Way Forward

    To break this cycle, we must move beyond a simple succession “plan” and adopt my 4D Process. This is a methodology that forces the conversation away from dated talent planning processes (including the Title Trap) to a robust execution of succession planning and management which will support the achievement of business strategy and  goals.

    While the 4D Methodology is comprehensive, and applies to all aspects of succession planning and management, the following are examples of how 4D will abolish the Title Trap.

    1. DESIGN (The Full Process Strategy)

    Example: Instead of designing a process that simply identifies “backups” for current roles, we Design the system to identify the Future-State Capabilities your 3-year strategy demands.

    • We move from asking “Who is next?” to asking “What skills will this role require in 2028?”
    1. DIAGNOSE (The Talent Review & Assessment)

    Example: Instead of using talent reviews to rubber-stamp past performance, we Diagnose the bench for Learning Agility; i.e., the ability to perform in unfamiliar terrain.

    • We move from judging what they did yesterday to assessing how fast they can pivot tomorrow.
    1. DEVELOP (The Growth Roadmap)

    Example:  Instead of generic training catalogs, we create Development Mandates. These are required, high-visibility, highly-challenging, cross-functional projects that build the true future-ready skills the organization lacks.

    • We move from “theoretical learning” to “validated readiness.”
    1. DEFEND (The Protection to Retain Leaders)

    Example: Instead of taking a passive approach toward our top talent, we proactively Defend our pipeline against burnout and poaching through quarterly risk checks. We ensure that our systems support and roles are realistic.

    • We move from “passive hope” to “active retention.”

    Is Your Process Tied to an Objective, or Just a Calendar?

    The biggest risk in succession management isn’t just planning for the wrong titles; it’s planning in a vacuum. Many organizations run talent reviews because it’s “that time of year,” not because they are chasing a specific business objective. If you cannot name the top three strategic goals your talent pipeline is meant to achieve, you aren’t planning, you’re just guessing.

    The Bottom Line: If you are only planning based on titles, you are not building a future-ready pipeline. Future-proof your organization by shifting the conversation from “Who” to “What.”

    Ready to Move Beyond the Title Trap?

    Most organizations have a succession process, but very few have a succession result. If your current talent reviews feel like a box-checking exercise that fails to move the needle on your strategic objectives, let’s talk.

    I help mid-size companies integrate my 4D Process into their existing systems to ensure that talent isn’t just identified, but actually ready to lead when the future arrives. Contact me to learn more about applying the 4D process to your strategy.

    P.S. Not sure if your team is planning for titles or capabilities? Ask your HRBP for the “Future-Skill Assessment” from your last review. If they don’t have one, it’s time to look at the 4D Process.

    Learn more about the me on LinkedIn.

  • Will Your First 9-Box Calibration Meeting Succeed or Fail?

    Will Your First 9-Box Calibration Meeting Succeed or Fail?

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    What HR Leaders Must Get Right When the CEO or Board Asks You to Lead a 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    If the CEO or Board has asked you to run your organization’s first 9-Box talent calibration meeting in 2026, this is not a routine HR exercise.

    It is a credibility test. It is a defining opportunity.

    Leaders will decide, often subconsciously, whether:

    • This process improves enterprise decision-making or wastes time
    • HR brings rigor or simply facilitates conversation
    • Talent decisions will be evidence-based or political

    Make no mistake: the organization is watching you.

    Why This Matters More Than Most HR Leaders Realize

    A first-time 9-Box calibration is not just about talent visibility. It is about enterprise risk.

    When organizations fail to calibrate talent effectively, the consequences are both predictable and costly:

    • Regretted turnover increases as high-ability talent disengages or exits when decisions feel political or opaque
    • Strategy execution weakens when leaders without the capacity or aspiration to operate at scale are placed into roles that exceed them
    • Revenue and operational risk rise as leadership gaps create delays, inconsistency, and rework
    • Compensation and development dollars are misallocated, producing little return
    • Trust in leadership erodes, accelerating cultural decline and disengagement

    These costs rarely appear on an HR dashboard, but they show up clearly in business results.

    The ROI Of Getting Your First 9-Box Talent Calibration Right

    When run with discipline, a first 9-Box calibration does something few HR processes can: it increases the organization’s ability to execute strategy through people.

    Specifically, it:

    • Improves the quality of succession decisions for critical roles
    • Focuses investment on talent that can actually scale
    • Forces shared ownership of enterprise talent, not siloed advocacy
    • Establishes HR as a strategic advisor to the CEO and Board

    The grid itself is not the value. The quality of the decisions it enables is.

    First, Anchor the Purpose of Your 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    A 9-Box calibration meeting exists to support future-facing decisions, not to validate the past.

    Its purpose is to:

    • Create a shared view of performance and potential
    • Differentiate where the organization should invest – compensation and training investments
    • Identify succession and readiness risks
    • Improve leadership judgment about talent over time

    It is not:

    • A performance review discussion
    • A compensation conversation
    • A forum for leader advocacy

    If this distinction is not explicit, the meeting will drift. It’s your job to anchor it.

    Defining Potential Using a Gartner-Aligned Framework

    In first-ever calibrations, performance is usually easier to align on. Potential is where things get fuzzy.

    To create consistency and defensibility, potential should be clearly defined as the intersection of Engagement, Ability, and Aspiration.

    All three matter. Missing one changes the decision.

    Aspiration (It’s Non-Negotiable)

    Aspiration reflects whether an individual genuinely wants expanded responsibility, leadership accountability, and the tradeoffs that come with it. Not everyone wants to make the sacrifices required to move-up in the organization.

    If a leader does not want to:

    • Take on broader scope
    • Accept required mobility
    • Absorb increased pressure, visibility, or complexity

    Then nothing else matters, regardless of performance or capability.

    Observable signals include:

    • Willingness to accept stretch or disruptive assignments
    • Realistic understanding of what the next level requires
    • Openness to feedback tied to future readiness

    Aspiration answers the question: Does this person actually want the next level at this point in time?

    Someone with strong ability but without aspiration cannot, by definition, be assessed as high potential because they don’t want to rise in the organization.

    Ability

    Ability refers to the demonstrated capacity to perform at higher levels of complexity over time.

    This includes:

    • Judgment in ambiguous situations
    • Pattern recognition and systems thinking
    • Learning speed and adaptability
    • Cognitive ability, including the capacity to process complexity, integrate information, and make sound decisions as scope increases

    Research consistently shows that intelligence and cognitive capability matter more as roles become larger and less structured. At senior levels, the work is not procedural. It is conceptual.

    Ability answers the question: Can this person successfully handle work of greater scale, ambiguity, and consequence?

    Strong past performance alone is not sufficient.

    Engagement

    Engagement reflects the level of sustained energy, commitment, and discretionary effort an individual brings to their work.

    Look for:

    • Ownership beyond formal role boundaries
    • Persistence through challenge and change
    • Emotional commitment to organizational goals

    Engagement answers the question: Will this person continue to invest their best effort here?

    If the individual does not demonstrate strong engagement in the work of the organization, it may signal flight risk.

    What Potential is Not

    In first-time 9-Box discussions, leaders often confuse potential with the comfort of what they know.

    Potential is not:

    • A reward for loyalty or tenure
    • Executive presence alone
    • Confidence or visibility
    • What a manager hopes will be true

    Clear definitions allow HR to challenge placements with evidence rather than opinion.

    Challenging wrong placements is your job. If the individual does not have the potential to successfully perform in higher levels of the organization, you must present the facts to facilitate the correct placement within the 9-Box. Solicit examples from other leaders who know the individual. Remember: decisions about strategic investments will be made based on the final outcome of the discussion.

    How To Structure the 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    Before The Meeting

    • Require leaders to submit proposed placements and evidence; postpone meetings if leaders fail to provide placements and evidence.
    • Reinforce definitions of performance and potential; you may have to do this many times.
    • Set expectations: preparation is mandatory; stop the calibration and call-out any leader who is “winging it.”
    • Train HR Business Partners on the purpose and process of talent calibration. Help them excel in their role.
    • Unless your process is mature, design it so the focus of it is on defined critical positions. Including all positions in the talent review may sound like a good idea but it can backfire when it comes time to execute post-meeting actions. Better to execute the most important actions well, than many actions poorly.

    During The Meeting

    • Calibrate similar roles together to ensure standards are applied consistently.
    • Start with the middle of the grid to establish definitions.
    • Ask for evidence, not opinion or advocacy. You may need to request this many times.
    • Document rationale for movement, not just final placement.
    • Exhibit courage, standing up to senior leaders as required.
    • Summarize the agreed-upon decisions and action plans.

    After The Meeting

    • Distribute action plans and ensure follow-through. Share agreed-upon development, retention, and compensation actions with the relevant leaders. Include timelines, owners, and measurable outcomes.
    • Align with high-potential talent individually. Meet with high-potential employees to communicate investment and expectations, not the box label. Clarify what growth opportunities or mobility may be required.
    • Identify and mitigate pipeline risks. Highlight gaps in readiness for critical roles. Determine where successors are missing or underprepared and plan targeted interventions (development, mentoring, rotational experiences).
    • Partner with Talent Acquisition strategically. Address talent gaps the organization cannot develop internally and ensure TA understands critical roles, required competencies, and timing.
    • Prepare and communicate executive summary for CEO/Board. Summarize key insights: talent differentiation, succession readiness, pipeline risks, and investment priorities. Highlight strategic implications (e.g., risks to execution, upcoming critical role gaps).

    Common Pitfalls to Manage

    • Title and tenure bias. From year to year, 9-Box placements can, and should, change.
    • Guarding of talent. Ensure leaders understand the importance of sharing talent across the enterprise.
    • Over-labeling high potential. If everyone is high-po, nobody is high-po. Your process has failed.
    • Under-labeling low performance / no potential. Unless you have been fastidiously managing poor performers throughout the year, you should see placements here. It’s your role to make sure the difficult conversations happen.
    • “Blockers” are acceptable. Remind leaders that allowing average performers with little to no potential to remain in leadership roles is expensive and, over time, will be the cause of turnover of high potential team members who are capable of performing in those roles at an even higher level.

    Close With Action, Not Alignment

    A 9-Box without follow-through is a waste of time. By the end of the meeting, you should have:

    • Clear investment priorities by box
    • Succession implications for critical roles
    • Identified readiness and risk-of-loss concerns
    • Directionally aligned development expectations
    • Action plans with defined ownership and timelines

    If the outcome is simply “great discussion,” the effort has not been successful.

    Final Thought on Running Your First 9-Box Talent Calibration Meeting

    Your first 9-Box calibration meeting sets a precedent.

    Leaders will remember whether HR led with clarity, challenged with confidence, and anchored decisions in evidence.

    Design it accordingly. Lead it accordingly.

    Subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter.

  • Succession Planning Is Not the Problem. Execution Is.

    Succession Planning Is Not the Problem. Execution Is.

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    I’ve spent nearly three decades inside talent management and leadership development. One thing I’ve learned is this: Succession planning does not fail at talent identification. It fails at execution.

    Most mid-sized organizations are good at identifying top talent; i.e., individuals who are both high performing and high potential. They use 9-Box grids, risk of loss ratings, and succession slates. Where the process consistently breaks down is what happens next.

    For mid-sized companies (roughly 500–2,000 employees), that breakdown is costly. You don’t have the luxury of prolonged external searches. You don’t have deep bench redundancy. And when critical talent sees no credible, challenging path forward, they do not wait patiently. They disengage. Or they leave.

    Research consistently shows that companies with strong, actively managed succession practices outperform peers, with profit margins up to 18% higher and employee retention 10-15% stronger. That return does not come from identification alone. It comes from disciplined execution of leadership development.

    It is time to retire the passive Individual Development Plan and replace it with something far more operational.

    The Mid-Size Risk: When Stagnation Turns into Burnout

    In mid-sized organizations, succession planning often stalls in two damaging ways.

    The Plateau Effect High performers are wired for growth. When development plans remain theoretical (no real stretch, no material change in scope or influence) people experience stagnation. Prolonged stagnation is one of the fastest accelerants of professional burnout – especially in combination with long-term exhaustion that stems from high workload.

    The Development Vacuum When succession plans are not actively resourced or enforced, the message is unmistakable: “We see your potential, but we’re not prepared to organize the business around developing it.” That gap between promise and action erodes trust quickly.

    The solution is not more training catalogs or better-worded IDPs. The solution is to operationalize how adults actually learn.

    Why Experience Matters: The 70–20–10 Reality

    Most leadership development frameworks reference the 70–20–10 model:

    • 70% of development comes from on-the-job, stretch experiences
    • 20% comes from coaching, mentoring, and feedback
    • 10% comes from formal training or coursework

    While the exact percentages vary by study, the underlying principle is well-established: adults do not fundamentally change behavior in classrooms. They change through experience, reflection, and accountability.

    Yet many succession plans still over-invest in the 10%; e.g., courses, programs, and workshops, while leaving the 70% to chance. That gap is where execution fails.

    The Development Mandate: Turning Potential into Readiness

    A modern succession plan requires what I call a Development Mandate. A Development Mandate is a non-negotiable, time-bound, cross-functional assignment tied directly to a real business outcome. It is not optional. It is not hypothetical. And it is not “extra credit.”

    It is how potential is tested, readiness is validated, and commitment is retained.

    The Problem: A Mandate Sounds Good in Theory but …

    If experiential, cross-functional development is so effective, why does it so rarely materialize after the talent review meeting?

    In practice, I see the same breakdown repeatedly. During talent reviews, leaders agree, often enthusiastically, that cross-functional assignments are the answer. And then, nothing happens.

    In a manufacturing organization I worked with, the succession slate looked strong on paper. Several critical roles had identified successors. Everyone agreed that cross-functional exposure was essential. Yet twelve months later, not a single assignment had been executed.

    Why? Because a mandate alone is not enough.

    Here are the most common barriers I see:

    1. The direct manager is not bought in. Most managers are rewarded for delivering near-term results with constrained resources. Without explicit alignment to strategic talent priorities, development work feels like a threat to execution, not part of it.
    2. Leaders and HR are unsure how to design feasible stretch assignments. Designing cross-functional work for someone who already has a full-time role requires discipline, scope control, and executive sponsorship. Many organizations simply do not have this muscle.
    3. The individual cannot do “extra work” and their day job simultaneously. When mandates are layered on top of existing responsibilities without trade-offs, they become unsustainable. Development fails not because of lack of capability, but because of lack of capacity.
    4. The organization avoids telling the person they’ve been identified as someone with potential. In an effort to manage expectations or perceived risk, companies often withhold transparency. The unintended consequence is predictable: when people do not know they are being prepared for a future role, motivation to absorb additional complexity and risk drops sharply.

    What sits underneath all four barriers is a more fundamental issue: no one owns the design and execution of cross-functional development. Is it the leader’s job? The HR Business Partner’s? The receiving function’s? In most organizations, the answer is unclear. As a result, no one is accountable for:

    • Designing development work that fits alongside a full-time role
    • Negotiating scope and trade-offs across functions
    • Securing explicit prioritization from the CEO or Board
    • Monitoring progress and removing organizational friction

    Without these capabilities, a “mandate” becomes an aspiration, not an operating reality.

    What a Strong Mandate Actually Requires

    The talent review, often anchored by tools like the 9-Box, should do more than label someone as “ready soon.” It should immediately define the experiential gap that must be closed.

    In mid-sized organizations, future leaders must demonstrate cross-functional fluency, decision-making under ambiguity, and enterprise thinking. Examples:

    These assignments do more than develop skill. They reveal learning agility. Learning agility is the ability to absorb feedback, course-correct, and perform in unfamiliar terrain. That capability predicts future success far more reliably than past performance alone.

    Governance, Design, and Authority: The Difference Between Intent and ROI

    For Development Mandates to deliver real business value, they must be deliberately designed, negotiated, and governed.

    • Executive sponsorship is non-negotiable. The mandate must be protected, prioritized, and legitimized
    • Coaching and feedback enable the 20%. Stretch without support is not development. It is risk.
    • Impact is measured by outcomes, not effort. Delivery quality, cross-functional feedback, and business results matter more than hours logged.

    When done well, this level of execution becomes one of the strongest retention signals an organization can send. It communicates investment, trust, and a credible future.

    Final Thoughts and What Comes Next

    Succession planning is not a documentation exercise. It is a living, operating system.

    When development is translated into mandatory, strategically aligned experiences, succession planning becomes a driver of readiness, retention, and return on investment.

    For mid-sized companies, this discipline is not optional. It is the difference between hoping your next leaders are ready and knowing they are.

    If this challenge feels familiar, contact me. A focused diagnostic conversation can quickly surface where execution is breaking down in your succession process.

    Sign-up for my LinkedIn newsletter.

  • The Costly and Hidden Risk in Your Succession Plan

    The Costly and Hidden Risk in Your Succession Plan

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    I worked with a mid-sized company preparing for its talent review and succession planning meetings. HRBPs struggled to pull accurate data and managers arrived unprepared. During the session, leaders essentially guessed who was “at risk” of leaving. They added a few names to a spreadsheet, tagged them based on gut feel, and listed vague follow-ups like “connect soon” or “keep an eye out.”

    Six months later, two top contributors (one in senior engineering and one in product strategy) resigned. Both had been labeled “low risk.” Neither had a retention plan. Their departures stalled projects, upset customers, and forced the company into costly external searches because successors weren’t ready. Morale dipped. Momentum slowed.

    That experience stayed with me. When risk and impact assessments remain soft, unstructured, and unmeasured, high performers slip through the cracks. The organization pays for it every time.

    Why Risk-of-Loss and Impact-of-Loss Assessments Fail

    • They rely on gut feel.
      Leaders default to impressions (“She seems happy.” “He’s performing well.”) instead of real indicators like time since last promotion, pay-range position, or mobility history.
    • Impact scoring is inconsistent or inflated.
      Without a shared method, “impact” becomes storytelling. Leaders either exaggerate (“If she leaves, everything collapses”) or minimize (“We can hire someone else”). In reality, neither is accurate.
    • Retention plans (when they exist) don’t get executed.
      Competing pressures and lack of accountability mean most plans fade into the background.
    • Replacing top talent is expensive, even conservatively.
      Replacing an employee typically costs 50 to 150 percent of their salary. (G&A Partners). Senior specialists and executives can reach 200 percent or more. (HR Morning). These figures don’t include losses in knowledge, customer trust, productivity, or team morale. Those impacts compound quietly and significantly.

    A Better Way: Data-Driven Risk, Structured Impact, and Real Execution

    Here is the blueprint I use. It replaces guesswork with clarity, structure, and follow-through.

    1. Build a Composite Risk-of-Loss Score

    • Integrate multiple signals, including:
      • HRIS data (tenure, time since promotion, compensation percentile, mobility history)
      • Burnout and work-environment diagnostics (Areas of Work Life Survey (AWS), Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), engagement surveys)
      • Event triggers (manager changes, promotion windows, declined stretch roles)
      • Qualitative sentiment (manager feedback, pulse-text themes, documented concerns)

    This creates a rolling probability of risk based on real indicators, not impressions.

    2. Implement a Standard Impact-of-Loss Model

    • Define consistent criteria for every role:
      • Recruiting and replacement cost
      • Vacancy days and ramp-up time
      • Strategic significance (clients, product continuity, institutional knowledge)
      • Ripple effects on teams, culture, and project flow

    A shared model eliminates emotional scoring and allows leaders to compare impact in a meaningful way.

    3. Turn Risk and Impact into Action

    • Prioritize talent using a simple risk-by-impact matrix
    • Build individualized retention plans with clear owners, actions, and deadlines
    • Track completion and follow-through, not just planning activity

    4. Pulse Early and Often

    • Burnout and disengagement usually build quietly. Quarterly pulses that incorporate AWS or MBI indicators surface issues long before resignation letters appear.

    5. Use Analytics and AI as Supporting Signals

    • Research shows that fine-tuned language models can outperform traditional attrition-prediction methods when analyzing engagement comments and written feedback (arXiv). Treat these insights as early-warning flags, then validate through conversations, stay interviews, and coaching.

    What This Means for Organizations for Succession Planning

    • Churn is costing you more than you think.
      Even a $120K high performer can cost $120K to $240K or more to replace, before counting lost momentum. (Read more here.)
    • Risk is often hiding in plain sight.
      High performers rarely raise their hands until they have one foot out the door.
    • Without structure, retention becomes reactive.
      Most organizations don’t take action until after a resignation. By then, it’s too late.

    If you want a retention strategy that truly protects your top talent, you need signal, structure, accountability, and execution discipline in your succession planning.

    I’ve created a Retention Diagnostic Checklist that your HRBP or leadership team can use immediately. It’s practical, comprehensive, and designed to reveal blind spots quickly. Contact me if you’d like a copy.