- A succession plan starts with the roles whose vacancy would disrupt the work, not only senior positions, and then sets out what success in them requires.
- Candidates' readiness is assessed with several kinds of evidence, and gaps are closed through practical development assignments and ongoing review, not a list of courses.
- Being included in the plan is not a promise of promotion and does not replace approved selection and appointment procedures.
What is the difference between succession planning and naming a deputy?
Naming a deputy may help in a sudden absence, but it does not tell you whether that person can lead the role in future. Succession is a process tied to the organisation’s strategy and workforce needs: Which roles will it need? Which skills and experience are changing? Who can be developed? Succession planning sources explain that building a wider talent pool may be better than limiting thinking to one successor per post. [1, 2]
Covering an emergency absence focuses on keeping decisions and services going immediately, and may require limited delegation to someone who is not a long-term candidate for the role. So keep two clear tracks: continuity arrangements for absences, and a plan to prepare future leaders. Merging them into one list of names creates inaccurate expectations and may put an employee in charge of something they are not prepared for or authorised to do.
How do you identify critical roles without looking only at senior posts?
Look at the effect a vacancy would have on service, compliance, decisions and specialist knowledge. A technical manager or an operations expert may be harder to replace than a more senior administrative role that is well documented. Ask about the scarcity of skills, the time it takes to reach competence, how much other units depend on the role, and whether internal or external alternatives exist.
The team can use a register showing the role, the impact of a vacancy, how hard it is to replace and the knowledge concentrated in it. This is a practical suggestion, not a mandatory official matrix. Leadership reviews the list and explains the reasons for its priorities; the aim is to direct development investment according to business need, not to rank people’s importance or declare some employees less valuable than others. Review the list when strategy, technology or structure changes.
What should be assessed in candidates?
Start by describing the requirements of the future role, then gather evidence of achievement, behaviour, ability to learn and ability to handle greater complexity. Good performance in the current job matters, but it does not prove readiness to lead a team or manage conflicting interests. Personal ambition is not the same as potential, and an outstanding employee may prefer a specialist path to a move into management.
Use several sources suited to the role: documented work results, development assignments, structured interviews and behavioural observations tied to clear criteria. Avoid assessing “leadership presence” without defining it; it can turn into a preference for people who resemble the manager in style or background. Have the assessment reviewed by more than one qualified manager, protect personal data, and keep unprofessional descriptions out of talent lists. [1, 3]
How do you express readiness in a useful way?
Instead of simply writing “ready in future”, write down what the candidate can do now and what is missing. They may need experience of managing a budget, leading a multidisciplinary team or working with a governance committee. Link these gaps to specific experiences and evidence of progress, not to general courses recorded just to complete the plan. Estimates of time should be based on the nature of the gap and the opportunities to practise, not on a fixed promised timeline.
It helps to distinguish between wanting the role, potential capability and actual readiness. A candidate may learn well but not be willing to relocate or ready for the role’s current demands. Discussing these points respectfully stops the plan being built on wrong assumptions. Employees should not be pushed to disclose personal details beyond what is needed to make a suitable development decision.
How does the plan turn into real development experience?
Choose an assignment that broadens the candidate’s responsibility without exposing the service to unmanaged risk, such as leading a joint project, preparing a decision paper or working with a manager on an operational review. Define what they will learn, who will support them, what authority they have and how the result will be reviewed. Observation and feedback after practice turn the experience into learning, rather than just extra workload.
Training programmes add tools and concepts the candidate needs, but they work best when tied to a situation where the learning will be applied. If the requirement is leading change, include a real, limited-scope change project in the plan. If the gap is financial, attending a course is not enough; the candidate should review a financial decision with a specialist and explain their assumptions. This is a suggested development design based on linking talent to organisational needs. [3]
What does a hypothetical case look like?
A hypothetical service organisation is preparing to expand its branches, and an operations manager is about to move to another role. Instead of automatically choosing the most senior employee, the organisation defines what the role will require after expansion: coordinating branches, reviewing indicators and developing supervisors. It considers more than one candidate and finds that one is strong operationally but needs experience managing stakeholders, while another excels at coordination but needs deeper knowledge of operations.
The organisation designs different assignments for each candidate, reviews evidence of their progress, and keeps the option of external recruitment if the required readiness is not there. The case does not assume that an internal candidate is always better or that anyone will definitely be promoted. Its value is in showing that succession reduces surprise and makes the selection decision better informed, while the final decision remains subject to the requirements, the opportunities and the approved procedures.
How do you respect privacy and fairness in the Gulf?
Civil service, nationalisation and appointment requirements differ between organisations and countries. The plan is built within these limits and reviewed with HR and legal affairs where needed. Succession lists are not used to bypass a job advertisement, eligibility conditions or required approvals. Development opportunities should also be available under published criteria, so the plan does not become a closed circle that depends on how close an employee is to the decision-maker.
Tell the candidate what they need to understand about the development opportunity and its limits, and define who can see the assessments. Do not publish people’s rankings or the likelihood of their leaving in shared files. Leadership can track aggregate indicators, such as the share of critical roles with a documented development plan, without exposing personal data to every manager. Update the information when an employee moves, changes their preferences, or new evidence of readiness emerges.
What should the succession file contain?
The file includes a description of the critical role, its future requirements, the candidates who agreed to discuss development, the assessment evidence, the gaps, the development assignments and the person responsible for follow-up. Add the review date and access restrictions. More fields are not the goal; what matters is that the decision-maker can explain why this intervention was chosen and how the team knew readiness had changed.
How do you stop the plan becoming a list of courses?
For each gap, define a situation that allows the skill to be practised and evidence that shows progress. If the gap is managing a dispute between two departments, the assignment might be leading a structured discussion with suitable supervision. If it is preparing a strategic decision, the output might be an options paper reviewed by an experienced manager. These are design examples that need adapting to the candidate’s authority and the risks of the work.
After the assignment, discuss what the candidate did, what they learned and what they would change, rather than just asking whether they enjoyed it. The experience may show that the gap is different from what the first assessment suggested, and the plan is then adjusted. Acknowledge the effect of the support they received; success under close supervision does not prove independent readiness to the same degree.
Agree time and resources with the manager, so the plan does not become extra work that conflicts with core duties. Review how opportunities are shared between candidates; someone who got a clear project and good support may look more ready than someone who never had a similar chance. Documenting the circumstances helps read the evidence fairly and makes training part of a complete preparation. When an activity ends, link its result to the requirement it was designed for, and decide whether the gap has closed or needs more practice. That way the plan stays tied to the future role and leadership can explain its decision.
Frequently asked questions
Is the plan a promise of promotion?
No. Make clear that it is preparation and an assessment of readiness, and that appointment depends on the job requirements, the opportunity and the approved procedures when the role falls vacant.
Do we choose only one successor?
The organisation may need more than one candidate, or a talent pool for similar roles. It depends on its size, how specialised the roles are and the development opportunities available.
Is the top performer always the best choice?
Not necessarily. Assess the requirements of the new role, evidence of leadership and learning, and the person's interest in it, alongside current performance, so the organisation does not lose an outstanding specialist to an unsuitable move.
What if the candidate leaves after being developed?
Departure is always possible, so spread knowledge, develop wider pools and review retention factors. The possibility does not justify stopping staff development or keeping knowledge with one person.
When should the plan be reviewed?
When roles, strategy or candidates change, and as part of a regular review cycle set by the organisation. The plan's value lies in updating it with evidence, not in the date it was first approved.
References
Recommended programmes
