Succession Planning
Who's ready to grow into what — decided before you need the answer, not scrambled together the week someone resigns.
Succession Planning vs. Replacement Planning
The two get used interchangeably, but they answer different questions — and only one of them is actually planning.
Replacement Planning
Reactive: who covers this role tomorrow if the person in it leaves? Usually just a backup name next to a box on an org chart — a contingency, not a development plan.
Succession Planning
Proactive: who are we deliberately growing toward a role they're not in yet? Built over months or years, with real development work behind it — not just a name on a list.
The 9-Box Grid
The standard tool for sorting people by two separate questions that get conflated constantly: how are they doing right now (performance), and how much room do they have to grow (potential). A star performer isn't automatically a succession candidate — and a high-potential person isn't automatically delivering yet.
Reliable Expert
Excelling where they are. Retain and recognize — don't force a promotion that doesn't fit.
Strong Contributor
Likely next-level candidate, given the right stretch assignment.
Succession Candidate
Top talent for key roles — and the highest flight risk if that growth stays invisible to them.
Steady, Plateaued
Valuable for stability; unlikely to grow much further in scope.
Developing
Coaching and stretch goals could move this person up on either axis.
Inconsistent
Real potential, but execution needs to catch up before betting on them.
Mismatch
The right seat may not exist here. Address directly — don't let it drift.
Underperforming
Capable but not showing it — worth a direct conversation about what's blocking it.
Too Early to Tell
Often new to the role or team. Give it time and support before judging from performance alone.
The Process
Succession planning fails when it's a one-time exercise before a reorg instead of a standing cadence.
Identify the critical roles — not every role, just the ones where an unplanned vacancy would genuinely hurt. Be honest about which ones those actually are.
Identify candidates — more than one per role where possible. A single named successor is still a single point of failure if they leave too.
Assess readiness — ready now, ready in 1-2 years, ready in 3-5 years, or needs real development first. A different conversation and a different plan for each.
Build individual development plans — the actual stretch assignments, exposure, and coaching that close the specific gap for that specific person, not a generic training module.
Review on a cadence — readiness, roles, and candidates all change. A plan reviewed once and filed away is a replacement plan wearing a succession-planning label.
Two failure modes show up constantly. First, the single-threaded critical role — one person who's quietly become the only one who can do something, discovered only when they're already walking out the door. Second, the silent succession candidate — someone named internally as a future leader who's never actually told, and leaves for a role elsewhere that made the growth path explicit. A plan that exists only in a spreadsheet protects the org chart; it does nothing for retention unless the person on it knows where they stand.
Try It
Paste this into ChatGPT, Claude, or whatever AI tool you use: