Call Us +1 224-415-2491

Tag: CFO

  • 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.

  • Most Succession Plans Are Weaker Than Leaders Think

    Most Succession Plans Are Weaker Than Leaders Think

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    What CHROs are expected to see before the board does

    Your CFO leaves unexpectedly.

    On paper, you have a succession plan.

    Within weeks, it becomes clear that the “ready-now” successor is struggling. Decisions slow. Confidence erodes. The CEO starts fielding uncomfortable questions from the board.

    This scenario is more common than most organizations admit. And it’s not because companies ignore succession planning, but because they overestimate bench strength, underestimate capacity limits, and fail to stress-test assumptions under real conditions.

    When succession risk is exposed, the cost is not abstract:

    • Delayed strategic execution
    • Lost revenue or stalled transformation initiatives
    • Increased executive search and onboarding costs
    • Preventable turnover of high-potential talent
    • Credibility erosion for the CHRO with the CEO and board

    This checklist is not an HR framework. It is a succession risk scan for CHROs accountable for outcomes.

    The CHRO Succession Risk Checklist

    A test for the quality of your decisions regarding leadership continuity

    As you review each section, ask yourself one question: Would I stand confidently behind this with the CEO and board?

    1. Do we agree on which roles truly put the enterprise at risk?

    For each senior role, ask:

    • If this role were vacant for six months, what would it cost the business in delayed strategy, revenue impact, or operational risk?
    • How difficult would it be to replace this role externally within 6–12 months?
    • Where is decision authority concentrated in a single individual?

    Risk signal:
    If too many roles are labeled “critical,” investment and attention are likely misallocated. The real points of failure may be under-protected.

    2. Are our “ready-now” claims defensible under scrutiny?

    For each critical role:

    • Who could step in within 12 months without materially disrupting the business?
    • Who is promising, but not yet ready?
    • Who shows-up on a succession slate but would struggle in practice?

    Risk signal:
    Most organizations believe they have more ready-now successors than they actually do. The gap is only revealed during an actual transition.

    3. Have we assessed capacity, not just capability?

    Consider:

    • Which leaders are already covering multiple roles or operating at sustained overload?
    • Whether successors could realistically absorb additional scope without performance degradation
    • Where the organization depends on “heroic effort” to function

    Risk signal:
    A successor with no capacity is not a successor. Ignoring capacity erosion turns even strong benches into fragile ones.

    4. Where is leadership flow blocked?

    Look for:

    • Roles occupied by solid performers with no upward trajectory
    • Managers who resist releasing strong talent
    • Key roles, assignments, or experiences that only a few people ever get access to

    Risk signal:
    Succession failures are rarely caused by a lack of talent. They are caused by tolerated bottlenecks that stall movement and drive high-potential attrition.

    5. Would our plan hold up under non-ideal conditions?

    Pressure-test assumptions:

    • A sudden executive exit
    • Accelerated retirements
    • Rapid growth, restructuring, or acquisition activity

    Risk signal:
    Most succession plans assume ideal timing. Real disruption exposes untested assumptions quickly.

    6. How thin is our bench where it matters most?

    Go beyond counting names:

    • How many credible successors exist per critical role?
    • Where are we overly dependent on external hiring?
    • Are gaps concentrated in specific functions or leadership levels?

    Risk signal:
    Bench strength often looks acceptable in aggregate but is dangerously thin in the roles that matter most.

    7. Would our succession decisions stand up to challenge?

    Ask:

    • Are decisions based on clear, consistent criteria?
    • Would independent leaders reach similar conclusions?
    • Is the process resilient to politics, favoritism, or pressure?

    Risk signal:
    If succession decisions cannot be clearly explained and consistently defended, they will be challenged when it matters most; i.e., often by the CEO or board after a transition has already gone wrong. At that point, the issue is no longer talent readiness, but the credibility of the CHRO’s judgment.

    The Bottom Line

    Succession planning is one of the few areas where the CHRO’s credibility is tested in real time. When a transition happens, the question will not be whether a process existed, but whether the decisions behind it were sound.

    Most companies are more exposed than they realize. It is the CHRO’s job to see the risk clearly before the board does.

    A Smart Next Step (Before the Questions Escalate)

    If this checklist surfaced a level of discomfort, you are not alone. Before raising succession risk with the CEO or board, many CHROs want a private, objective view of where they are exposed without internal politics or premature conclusions.

    That is why I offer a Confidential Succession Risk Review:

    • 30–45 minutes
    • Focused on a small number of truly critical roles
    • Designed to clarify where assumptions hold and where they don’t
    • No commitment, no internal disruption

    The goal is simple: To help you see the risk clearly and decide what action, if any, is required.

    If leadership continuity is part of your mandate, clarity is not optional.

    Read more about how leader burnout affects succession strategy.

    Get to know me on LinkedIn.

  • If Everyone Is a High Potential, No One Is

    If Everyone Is a High Potential, No One Is

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Why Succession Plans Break Down During Talent Reviews

    The CHRO knew something was off before the meeting even started. She was facilitating a talent review with her executive team. The agenda was clear. The framework was sound. The definitions of performance and potential had been shared in advance.

    And yet, as the conversation unfolded, a familiar pattern emerged. One by one, leaders advocated for their people.

    • “He’s one of my strongest performers.”
    • “She consistently exceeds expectations.”
    • “I’d hate for her to miss out on development opportunities.”

    By the end of the discussion, the high-potential box was crowded. Undeniably, too crowded.

    And the CHRO was left with a problem she knew well: If everyone is a high potential, no one is.

    Where Succession Plans and Talent Reviews Break Down

    This is not a leadership failure. In fact, most leaders understand performance. They manage it every day. They are experienced in writing performance reviews.

    Potential, however, is more abstract, and far easier to misapply.

    So, in talent reviews, performance sneaks up as a proxy for potential.

    • High performers are mislabeled “High Potential” and ready to take on more.
    • Dependable leaders, solid performers, are assumed to be able to move up.
    • And few people are willing to say, out loud, “This person may be exceptional where they are, and not suited for a significantly bigger role.”

    That reluctance is human. It is also where succession risk enters the system.

    What the CHRO Had to Do Next

    Midway through the meeting, the CHRO paused the discussion.

    She did not challenge anyone’s assessment of performance. She had studied past performance reviews. She knew they were accurate.

    She challenged the criteria being used to assess potential. She reminded the group of the company’s definition (recommended by Gartner research):

    Potential is the likelihood that someone can successfully grow into roles of greater scope and complexity, based on:

    • Aspiration – Do they genuinely want broader accountability and enterprise impact?
    • Ability – Do they have the cognitive capacity, learning agility, and judgment required at the next level?
    • Engagement – Are they committed to the organization and its long-term direction?

    Then she asked a different question. “Where has this person already operated at a higher level of complexity than their current role requires?”

    Instantly, the room got quieter, leaders understanding the implication of the question.

    Why Leaders Inflate Potential (Even with Good Intentions)

    As the discussion continued, the underlying dynamics became visible:

    • Leaders wanted to protect their top performers.
    • They knew high potentials received more investment in training and development.
    • They knew high potentials get more visibility and access to the CEO.
    • They wanted their teams to look strong.
    • They wanted credit for developing strong talent.

    It wasn’t political; however, it was predictable.

    Without strong facilitation, talent review calibrations drift toward advocacy instead of assessment.

    The Turning Point in the Room

    The meeting shifted when the CHRO reframed the goal.

    “This is not about who deserves more,” she said. “This is about who can handle more complexity, sooner, with less support.”

    She separated performance evidence from potential evidence.

    • Strong results stayed on the table.
    • Enterprise judgment, learning agility, and hunger for scope became the focus.
    • Several names moved, not because they were weak, but because the bar was clearer.

    By the end of the meeting, the high-potential population was smaller, sharper, and far more defensible.

    Why This Matters to the CEO and the Board

    Boards are not impressed by full boxes, but they are reassured by credible differentiation.

    When potential is inflated:

    • Succession plans look robust but fail under scrutiny
    • Training and development investments are diluted
    • The senior leadership team loses credibility with the Board when challenged on readiness

    When potential is rigorously defined and consistently applied:

    • Risk becomes visible
    • Decisions improve
    • Trust in the process and results increases

    That is the difference between a talent review and a talent strategy.

    The CHRO’s Real Role

    CHROs are not there to document leader opinions. They are there to:

    • Define potential clearly
    • Reinforce it relentlessly
    • Challenge leaders respectfully
    • Protect the integrity of the process when pressure shows up

    Talent calibration is not about consensus. It is about decision quality.

    If you are facilitating talent calibration meetings and feel the tension between performance and potential, that tension is not a failure of the process. It is the work. When handled with discipline and clarity, it becomes one of the most powerful levers HR has to reduce succession risk and earn lasting credibility with the CEO and Board.

    Learn more about succession planning and execution.

    Learn more about the author, Christy Suerth

  • Executive Burnout: The Hidden Risk Undermining Your Succession Plan

    Executive Burnout: The Hidden Risk Undermining Your Succession Plan

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Why Executive Burnout Is a Governance Risk You Can No Longer Ignore 

    For too long, burnout has been treated as a personal wellness issue. Aa sign that someone needs a long weekend, a vacation, or a meditation app. But from the C-suite vantage point, this is the wrong lens.

    Executive and managerial burnout is not a personal failure. It is a governance failure.

    It poses a direct, unmanaged threat to business continuity, leadership pipeline integrity, and organizational capacity.

    What I Saw in 20+ Years Leading Global Talent Processes

    Across my career at global organizations, I facilitated hundreds of Talent Review meetings. These are the rooms where senior leaders passionately debated performance, potential, and succession. Here’s what always struck me:

    Leaders loved Talent Review meetings… but consistently failed in the follow-through.

    • We dutifully assessed performance.
    • We analyzed potential.
    • We flagged flight risks.

    But then?

    Workloads took over. Development plans were untouched. Critical conversations didn’t happen. And flight risks… well, they flew.

    The pattern was painfully predictable:

    • A high-value leader resigns unexpectedly
    • The “ready-now” successor we thought we had wasn’t actually ready
    • We scramble to hire externally
    • Internal leaders lose morale because promotion paths feel blocked

    In every case, the root cause was the same: Weak follow-through. Not weak talent.

    And burnout was almost always in the background.

    The Cost of Executive Pipeline Fragility

    Make no mistake: executive burnout is a multi-million-dollar problem.

    • High-Value Loss: Burnout among executives and managers costs organizations over $20,000 per person annually in lost productivity and diminished performance.
    • Succession Shock: Replacing a critical leader costs 50% to 200% of salary and creates a destabilizing gap in your leadership pipeline.
    • Missed Opportunities: Your best leaders carry the most mission-critical work. When they leave, projects stall because no one else has the context or expertise.
    • Reputation Damage: When an executive leaves due to burnout, the story spreads, eroding employer brand trust faster than any Glassdoor review ever could.

    If you’re a senior leader focused on cost optimization and growth, this is not a people issue. This is a financial and operational liability.

    For further reading: Burnout Doesn’t Send You an Invoice but It’s Already Draining Your Bottom Line

    Conservative synthesis of leader and HiPo research suggests roughly 30–45% of critical successor/high-potential leaders are likely to show moderate-to-high burnout risk.

    Your Succession Plan Is Probably Blind to Burnout

    Traditional succession planning answers one question: Who could step into a bigger job?

    But it doesn’t answer the more urgent one:  Who is burning out in the job they have right now?

    This is the gap that creates unpredicted resignations and the expensive panic that follows.

    How I Bring Governance Discipline to Burnout Risk

    As an Executive Succession Risk Partner, my work is to bring a diagnostic, data-driven lens to what most companies treat as a “soft” issue.

    1. The Future Risk Audit

    Using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and the Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS), we assess your critical leadership cohorts. This is not an engagement survey. It is a structural risk audit.

    2. Pinpointing Systemic Failure

    AWS data reveals what’s actually eroding capacity:

    • Workload
    • Fairness
    • Reward
    • Control
    • Community
    • Values misalignment

    This tells us why your leaders are exhausted and which systems are failing them.

    3. The Structural Fix

    We stop blaming individuals and start repairing the organizational mechanics:

    • Workload friction
    • Recognition gaps
    • Decision-making autonomy
    • Value misalignment
    • Leadership capability issues

    These interventions rebuild capacity and strengthen succession integrity.

    The Outcome: Capacity Reclaimed. Succession Secured.

    Structural interventions create measurable gains:

    1. Succession Secured: You protect your most valuable leaders, ensuring pipeline integrity and business continuity.
    1. Capacity Reclaimed
      By removing friction, you recover lost hours, lost energy, and lost productivity — enabling your organization to finally “do more with less.”

    If you can’t afford to lose $20,000 of leadership capacity this year, or risk a sudden vacancy in a critical role, the time to audit your risk is now.

    Interested in assessing the risk inside your own organization?

    Let’s schedule a 15-minute conversation to evaluate the health of your leadership pipeline and the real-world cost of burnout in your succession plan.

    Subscribe to my newsletter on LinkedIn.

  • Bad Leadership Is One of the Biggest Drivers of Burnout

    Bad Leadership Is One of the Biggest Drivers of Burnout

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    We talk a lot about employee burnout – employee resilience, personal boundaries, and meditation apps. But what we don’t talk nearly enough about is the top driver of burnout inside organizations; i.e., leadership behavior and the psychological safety it creates (or destroys).

    The data is overwhelming:

    • 70% of team climate is influenced directly by the manager (organizational psychology research).
    • Teams with low psychological safety show significantly higher rates of stress, turnover, conflict, errors, and stalled innovation.
    • Leaders account for up to 40% of the variance in employee burnout (McKinsey).

    This isn’t about “bad apples.” It’s about leaders who were promoted without the training or support to create healthy, high-performance environments.

    And the cost is enormous.

    The Hidden Cost of Poor Leadership and Low Psychological Safety

    When psychological safety is low, employees operate under chronic threat response. And that creates a cascading set of losses:

    • Turnover: Employees leave managers, not companies.
    • Lost productivity: Chronic stress reduces cognitive capacity by up to 30%.
    • Higher healthcare premiums: Burnout costs between $4,000 and $21,000 per employee annually, depending on the level of the role.
    • Presenteeism: The “I’m here, but I’m barely functioning” cost.
    • Absenteeism: More sick days and stress-related health issues.
    • Lower innovation: People will not share new ideas if they fear being judged.
    • Slower decision-making: Teams stay quiet until asked, and escalate unnecessarily.
    • Employer brand erosion: Word spreads fast in talent markets.

    This is the Burnout Tax. A silent financial leak created by poor leadership practices.

    What Poor Leaders Consistently Miss: Psychological Safety Is the Engine of Performance

    Most leaders don’t intend to create burnout. But without training, they unintentionally:

    • react defensively
    • communicate inconsistently
    • set unclear expectations
    • reward urgency over quality
    • shut down dissent
    • ignore micro-signals of distress

    These behaviors create a low-safety environment where people simply cannot access their best thinking.

    Psychological safety is not “comfort.” It is the freedom to think, contribute, question, and take smart risks without fear. It’s the foundation of innovation, trust, and sustainable performance.

    How to Assess Psychological Safety (and Burnout Risk) in Your Organization

    Here are the tools that matter most. They are evidence-based, not trendy:

    1. Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI)

    The gold standard for measuring burnout, used globally for decades. It assesses:

    • Emotional Exhaustion
    • Depersonalization
    • Diminished Personal Accomplishment

    2. Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS)

    The workplace assessment that reveals why burnout is happening:

    • Workload
    • Control
    • Reward
    • Community
    • Fairness
    • Values alignment

    Together, MBI + AWS provide the most complete view of burnout sources.

    3. Team Interviews or Focus Groups

    Direct, human insight. The nuance you can’t get from surveys alone.

    4. Workload + Decision-Making Analysis

    This exposes:

    • bottlenecks
    • inefficient approval flows
    • unclear ownership
    • decision fatigue
    • role overload

    5. Leadership 360s

    A reality check for leaders: “How you think you’re showing up” vs. “How your team experiences you.”

    The Metrics That Matter (Including Leading Indicators)

    Most organizations rely solely on lagging indicators; i.e., the signs of burnout that appear when it’s already too late:

    • Voluntary turnover
    • Absenteeism
    • Performance drops
    • Exit interviews
    • Formal complaints

    You need these, but they won’t help you intervene early.

    Leading indicators show burnout before it erupts:

    • Increases in workload without resource adjustment
    • Slow or hesitant decision-making
    • Drop in idea-sharing or collaboration
    • More escalations from frontline teams
    • Increased conflict or defensiveness in meetings
    • Reduced participation in optional initiatives

    These indicators tell you: “A burnout storm cloud is forming. Act now.”

    The Skills Leaders Must Learn to Reduce Burnout and Build Psychological Safety

    Psychological safety improves when leaders build specific, behavior-based skills:

    • Deep listening and non-defensive communication
    • Recognizing early burnout signals
    • Giving feedback without triggering threat response
    • Facilitating inclusive conversations
    • Clarity-setting and scope control
    • Managing workload and prioritization
    • Repair conversations after harm
    • Emotional regulation under pressure
    • Coaching skills (not just directing)

    These skills are not “soft.” These are performance skills that drive execution, innovation, and results.

    A Call to Action for Organizations

    If you’re serious about improving performance and retention, and strengthening leadership effectiveness, start with a Psychological Safety & Burnout Audit that includes:

    • MBI + AWS
    • Team Interviews and Focus Groups
    • Workload & Decision-Making Analysis
    • Leadership 360s

    This gives you clear data, clear language, and a clear roadmap for targeted improvement. No guesswork. No blaming individuals. Just evidence, insight, actionable steps and opportunity.

    If you are interested in learning more about a Psychological Safety & Burnout Inventory, contact us.

    Subscribe to my LinkedIn newsletter for more.

  • Stop Burnout: Unlock Employee Innovation and Boost Productivity

    Stop Burnout: Unlock Employee Innovation and Boost Productivity

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Burnout isn’t about weak individuals. Burnout is a silent organizational crisis that is destroying your employees’ ability to think, innovate, and make smart decisions. For leaders demanding high performance, this is a huge financial leak.

    The system is broken, and the cost is measured in millions:

    1. Turnover Time Bomb: The moment your best people leave, you pay huge costs to replace and retrain them.
    2. Presenteeism Trap: Your people are at work, but the damage to their focus and decision-making means their output quality is low. This is worse than absenteeism because you’re paying for mediocre performance.

    Burnout is Everywhere: It’s Already in Your Company

    If you think this problem is unique to other industries, think again. Burnout is now a global epidemic that has been declared an “occupational phenomenon” by the WHO.

    • Prevalence is High: Studies consistently show that up to 70% of professionals report feeling burned out at least once in their career.
    • Managers are Hit Hardest: Middle managers, your critical layer for execution, are often the most exhausted, caught between unrealistic demands from the top and struggling teams below.
    • The Cost is Universal: Whether you’re in tech, finance, or retail, the root causes (unmanageable workload, lack of control, unfairness) exist in every organization.

    You are not immune. Your best people are likely struggling with this right now.

    The Burnout Brain Drain: Why Burnout Equals Bad Decisions

    Burnout isn’t just low energy; it’s a brain function failure that costs you millions in poor judgment:

    • Executive Functions Shut Down: The part of the brain responsible for planning, problem-solving, and good judgment struggles to work. Result: Your staff wastes time on low-priority tasks, makes costly errors, and can’t see the big picture.
    • The “Brain Fog” Trap: Focus and memory fade. If a critical email is missed, or a project detail is forgotten, it’s often the result of chronic cognitive exhaustion, not carelessness.
    • Innovation Blocked: Creativity and adaptability require a fully functioning mind. Burnout actively kills your ability to innovate and respond to market changes.

    For example, I know a CEO who has made Innovation a core company value. Yet, despite this focus, there is no measurement of employee burnout within the organization. This raises a critical question:

    How can true innovation be achieved if the company is experiencing brain drain due to unaddressed burnout?

    Without actively monitoring and addressing burnout, even the most innovative environments risk losing their best talent and stifling creativity.

    ACTION PLAN: 3 Ways Leaders Fix the Cognitive Crash

    Stop prioritizing wellness apps. Start fixing your organization’s design flaws.

    1. STOP Overload: Stop making people do two jobs. Cut non-essential work and enforce boundaries to give the brain time to recover.
    2. GIVE Control: Delegate authority and power, not just tasks. Giving employees control over how and when they work is the most powerful tool against burnout.
    3. MEASURE Risk, Not Just Engagement: Use validated burnout assessments to directly link your organizational culture issues to your turnover costs and error rates.

    Stop letting burnout drain your talent and your profits. It’s time to lead with systemic change.

    To learn more ways to fix burnout and its impact on innovation, creativity and thinking, contact us.

  • Before you Post That $100k Job, Think Again

    Before you Post That $100k Job, Think Again

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Why solving burnout by adding more people may cost more than fixing what’s broken.

    When teams feel stretched, hiring seems like the obvious answer. Add capacity. Lighten the load. Hit the goals.

    But what if the issue isn’t capacity? What if it’s culture?

    Before approving new headcount, leaders should pause and ask: Which of the six Areas of Worklife might be out of alignment?

    Because burnout rarely starts with individuals. It starts with systems.

    The Six Levers of Burnout

    Maslach and Leiter’s Areas of Worklife framework identifies six organizational factors that drive burnout risk:

    1. Workload – sustainable pace and realistic capacity
    2. Control – autonomy and influence over decisions
    3. Reward/Recognition – appreciation, fairness, acknowledgment
    4. Community – trust, support, and belonging
    5. Fairness – equity in workload, promotion, and decision-making
    6. Values – alignment between individual and organizational purpose

    When even one of these areas is consistently misaligned, adding more people rarely solves the problem. It just spreads the strain.

    Recognition: One of the Hidden Triggers of Burnout

    Recognition is often the quietest – but most costly – gap.

    When people feel unseen, their performance declines even if workload stays constant. Gallup’s 2024 data show employees who don’t feel recognized are 2.7x more likely to leave, and teams with low recognition experience 20% lower productivity.

    Many organizations misread this as a capacity problem and respond by hiring. But the real issue is motivational, not operational.

    Headcount Vs. Systemic Fix: A Cost Comparison

    For a mid-market company of 500 employees (average salary $100K):

    OptionCostOutcomeRisk
    Add 1 FTE$130K–$150K (salary, hiring, ramp-up)Temporary reliefRoot cause persists; burnout remains
    Address Recognition gap$40K–$60K (manager training, peer recognition tools, comms redesign)Engagement and retention gainsRequires leadership focus, not more headcount

    Even a modest recognition initiative that boosts engagement by 10% can recover $1M+ in productivity – a far higher return than hiring another employee.

    The CFO’s Math

    If just 10% of a 500-person workforce is underperforming due to burnout and low recognition:

    • That’s 50 people delivering at 80% capacity.
    • Annual productivity loss ≈ $1 million (50 × $100K × 20%).
    • Addressing recognition costs a fraction of that and pays back 10–12x ROI if engagement rebounds even halfway.

    And Recognition is only one of the six levers. Misalignment across multiple areas multiplies the financial impact.

    A Smarter Way Forward

    Before approving that next headcount request, ask: “Which area of work life might actually be out of alignment?

    Workload may be visible but Recognition, Fairness, or Control often drive the real energy drain.

    Systemic burnout requires systemic solutions. Adding people won’t heal a sub-optimal culture.

    The Leadership Imperative

    Recognition isn’t “soft.” It’s strategic.

    When leaders align all six Areas of Work Life, they don’t just prevent burnout, they protect performance, profit, and the people who make both possible.

    I help leaders quantify burnout costs before they become turnover costs. DM me if you’d like to see what that looks like in your 2025 plan.

    Sign up for my LinkedIn Newsletter.

    Learn more about the Cost of Burnout.

  • Engagement Scores Miss the Mark. How To Measure Thrivability and Prevent Burnout

    Engagement Scores Miss the Mark. How To Measure Thrivability and Prevent Burnout

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    In boardrooms and executive team meetings, the conversation is shifting. Engagement scores miss the mark.

    I’ve seen it firsthand. I worked with a CEO who wasn’t interested in another “engagement survey.” He wanted to know something deeper: How are our people really doing?

    Just yesterday, a colleague told me his CEO asked about “thrivability.” Not retention. Not engagement. But whether employees were truly able to thrive in the culture.

    This tells me something: leaders are starting to realize that thrivability is becoming a core business metric. It’s one they can’t afford to ignore.

    Why Thrivability Matters in Preventing Burnout

    Many organizations talk about well-being. And while well-being matters, it often stops at programs or perks: meditation apps, gym memberships, wellness stipends. Well-being can mean employees are “okay.”

    Thrivability goes further. It asks: are people energized, purposeful, and contributing in ways that drive performance?

    • Retention isn’t enough. Keeping burned-out employees on the payroll costs more than turnover. Thrivability ensures people are energized, not just hanging on.
    • Innovation and agility require energy. Thriving employees contribute ideas, solve problems, and see possibilities others miss.
    • It signals cultural health. When thrivability is high, you’ll see resilience, adaptability, and trust across the organization.

    Thrivability isn’t just surviving. It’s flourishing. And that difference is what drives business outcomes.

    How to Put Thrivability into Practice

    If you’re wondering how to measure and apply this inside your organization, start small:

    1. Ask different questions. Move beyond “Are you engaged?” to “What restores your energy at work?” or “Do you feel your work matters?”
    2. Track energy as a metric. Pulse surveys at the end of the week can reveal whether teams are consistently depleted or restored.
    3. Leverage validated tools. The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Areas of Worklife (AWL) Survey are gold standards for understanding where employees are at risk of burnout—and where thriving is most possible. Unlike engagement surveys, they identify the root causes of depletion.
    4. Link to business outcomes. Compare thrivability scores with retention, innovation metrics (patents, ideas submitted), or even customer satisfaction.
    5. Pilot with leaders. Ask managers to track team thrivability and discuss results in staff meetings—make it visible and actionable.
    6. Embed in scorecards. Thrivability deserves a spot next to revenue, margin, and customer experience. What gets measured gets managed. For more ideas, read my article about how one company used KPIs to prevent burnout.

    The Executive Imperative: Measure What Matters

    Forward-thinking CEOs are already asking their teams about thrivability.

    Because companies don’t burn out. People do. And when your people thrive, your business thrives.

    Question for Leaders:
    If you could add one thrivability measure to your scorecard tomorrow, what would it be?

    (And if you’re curious about how tools like the Maslach Burnout Inventory and Areas of Work Life Survey reveal these answers, send me a note. I’m always happy to share how organizations are using it.)

    Thrivability is quickly becoming a leading indicator of organizational performance. I believe in the next five years, boards will begin expecting it reported alongside earnings and customer growth.

    Do you find this information helpful: Subscribe to my newsletter on LinkedIn:

    Learn more about the cost of burnout by reading Burnout Doesn’t Send You an Invoice but It’s Already Draining Your Bottom Line