Call Us +1 224-415-2491

Tag: SuccessionPlanning

  • 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.

  • How Leader Burnout Impacts Your Succession Planning Strategy

    How Leader Burnout Impacts Your Succession Planning Strategy

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    Most succession plans do not fail because companies misjudge talent. They fail because organizations assess successor readiness without assessing their capacity.

    In many mid-sized companies, the succession pipeline looks strong on paper. High-potentials are identified. Benches are full. Diversity targets are met. Yet promotions stall, successors hesitate, and critical roles sit open longer than expected. The issue is not talent quality. It is capacity erosion.

    Capacity erosion occurs when a leader remains capable and committed, but sustained overload steals the margin needed to absorb additional scope, complexity, or pressure. When this goes unmeasured, succession plans appear sound when they are actually fragile.

    Burnout is the mechanism behind that erosion. We are not talking about burnout as a wellness concern, but as a leading indicator of leadership continuity risk.

    The Succession Assumptions That No Longer Hold True

    Most succession models rely on three assumptions:

    1. Capability scales as leaders move up
    2. Readiness increases with exposure and time
    3. Aspiration remains stable when performance is strong

    Burnout disrupts all three.

    Burnout reflects a sustained mismatch between role demands and the individual’s ability to perform the work. When that mismatch persists, leaders may remain capable and committed, but their capacity to absorb additional scope, ambiguity, and pressure diminishes. Succession planning rarely accounts for this erosion.

    Learn more about ways to spot early burnout in the workplace.

    How Capacity Risk Shows Up in Succession Systems

    The following patterns are common in organizations where burnout has begun to negatively impact leadership continuity:

    • Successors stall after being identified. Once named, successors are expected to accelerate. Instead, development plateaus. This is not disengagement; it is energy conservation in response to already-maxed capacity.
    • High potentials decline roles that look like logical next steps. Burned-out high performers make rational trade-offs. They opt out of roles they perceive as unsustainable, even when ambition and capability remain intact.
    • Leadership benches look strong on paper but do not convert into movement. Performance history and potential ratings ignore depletion. Organizations measure who could do the job, not who can sustain it now.
    • Successors don’t value the promotion. Recent workforce research shows that promotion is no longer a default career goal for many employees. Surveys indicate that more than 40% of employees are turning down promotions, often citing workload and stress concerns even when the roles offer higher status or pay (Forbes, 2025). At the same time, senior women leaders, critical for strong pipelines, are less likely than their male counterparts to target the next level. This aligns with broader trends of leaders reassessing leadership roles under sustained strain (Business Insider, 2025). These trends suggest that when qualified internal candidates consistently avoid certain roles, it reflects not a broken pipeline but a role design that lacks sustainable capacity.

    These are not isolated talent problems. They are structural indicators that succession risk already exists.

    The Diversity Implication

    This dynamic disproportionately affects women in succession pipelines.

    Women in succession pipelines often absorb significant invisible labor inside the organization; e.g., mentoring, culture stabilization, and people management work that expands their role’s responsibility, without expanding authority. In many cases, this is layered onto substantial responsibilities outside of work.

    When succession decisions converge with this reality, organizations advance representation goals without assessing or redesigning load. Hesitation or stall is then misread as confidence or aspiration issues, when the real constraint is capacity erosion.

    This is not a failure of the individual; it is a systems design failure.

    Why Burnout Belongs in Succession Planning

    Burnout does not predict who will leave next quarter. It predicts where succession plans will fail under real conditions.

    A successor who is technically ready but operating at depleted capacity represents greater continuity risk than one who still requires development. When burnout indicators are present among successors or critical incumbents, bench strength is theoretical, not operational.

    Read more about how executive burnout undermines your succession plan.

    Practical Shifts CHROs Can Make

    This does not require a new succession framework. It requires sharpening the one you already have.

    • Expand risk discussions beyond flight risk. Assess capacity, load, and sustainability alongside readiness.
    • Use validated diagnostic tools with successors, hi-pos and critical talent pools. Instruments like the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and Areas of Worklife Survey (AWS) provide objective data that elevates talent discussions from gut-feel to evidence. They diagnose the structural issues so you can fix them.
    • Treat role sustainability as a succession variable. If burnout risk appears across multiple potential successors, redesign the roles. This finding belongs in the succession conversation.

    The Strategic Reframe

    Succession planning is not about identifying who could step into a role. It is about ensuring leaders can sustain the roles your organization requires.

    Burnout is one of the strongest indicators that leadership continuity is at risk. Organizations that incorporate capacity assessment into succession planning move from reactive replacement to durable leadership pipelines.

    If you are preparing for upcoming talent reviews or succession discussions and want to integrate capacity risk into your leadership continuity strategy, I welcome the conversation. This is where many succession plans fail, and where they can be materially strengthened.

    Connect with me on LinkedIn.

  • 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.

  • Will Your Organization’s Talent Review Fail?

    Will Your Organization’s Talent Review Fail?

    •

    Christy Suerth, MS, SPHR, CPC, CHC

    And What High-Performance Organizations Do Differently for Talent Reviews

    After facilitating more than 100 talent reviews across industries, I have seen a pattern that leaders rarely recognize. Organizations meticulously maintain their physical assets, yet neglect their human assets.

    In manufacturing, machines are inspected daily for safety, calibration, and production output.

    In telecommunications, towers are checked constantly for compliance, signal quality, and operational integrity.

    But when it comes to talent, the only asset capable of creativity, judgment, and innovation, talent assessment becomes an after-thought.

    This oversight is not because leaders do not care. It is because most organizations have never built a disciplined, repeatable system for evaluating and developing their people. And the consequences are some of the costliest problems in business.

    Below are the issues I see most often in broken talent review processes, and they represent the highest financial and organizational impact.

    The Most Common and Most Costly Breakdowns in Talent Reviews

    1. The Wrong People Are Rated “Top Talent”

    High performers are often identified based on popularity, visibility, or personal affinity rather than measurable contributions or leadership behaviors. This leads to misallocated development dollars, stalled innovation, and top performers leaving because they feel unseen.

    Impact: Millions in hidden losses from disengagement, misaligned promotions, and failed succession bets.

    2. Leadership Potential Is Mislabeled

    Many organizations confuse high performance with leadership readiness. As a result, they accelerate people into roles they are not equipped to handle, while overlooking those who actually demonstrate strategic thinking, emotional intelligence, and team leadership capacity.

    Impact: Failed promotions, team instability, and burnout created by leaders who were never prepared to lead.

    3. Talent Data Is Anecdotal, Not Evidence-Based

    Without clear criteria and structured evaluation, talent reviews devolve into a series of stories, opinions, and selective memories. This results in inconsistent ratings, inequitable decisions, and a leadership bench that is built on bias rather than reality.

    Impact: Weak succession pipelines and increased legal and reputational risk.

    4. No Real Follow-Through After the Meeting

    Organizations spend hours debating talent but do not convert insights into action.

    No development plans. No accountability. No leadership conversations. No tracking.

    The result is a process that “feels good” but creates no measurable change.

    Impact: Zero ROI on talent investments and persistent leadership gaps.

    5. Burnout and Flight Risk Go Undetected

    Without structured diagnostics, leaders fail to see early warning signs of burnout, misalignment, and attrition risk.

    By the time someone quits, the organization is already facing productivity loss, replacement costs, and operational disruption.

    Impact: Costly turnover that could have been prevented months earlier with simple, systematic monitoring.

    The Resounding Truth: Human Assets Are Undermanaged

    Across every industry I have worked in, one truth stands out.

    Companies rigorously protect the assets that sit on their balance sheets but they do not rigorously protect the assets that create their future.

    Physical assets deteriorate without maintenance.

    Human assets deteriorate without development, clarity, and leadership.

    Organizations lose their best people not because talent reviews are missing. They lose them because talent reviews lack structure, discipline, and follow-through.

    What High-Performance Organizations Do Instead

    They treat talent as a core operating system:

    • Clear, evidence-based criteria
    • Calibrated evaluations
    • Strength-based talent placement
    • Succession pipelines that reflect reality
    • Leadership accountability for development
    • Annual and quarterly check-ins
    • Diagnostics that surface risk before it becomes crisis

    This is not “HR work.” This is business continuity work.

    The organizations that get this right outperform their peers in retention, innovation, engagement, and speed of execution.

    If you are concerned about leadership gaps, flight risk, or legal exposure tied to biased talent decisions, let’s talk. A brief call can show you exactly where your risk sits, and how to eliminate it.

    Subscribe to my weekly newsletter.