The Leadership Predicament in Succession Planning: Trust, Options, and Plan B

In my recent efforts to bolster succession planning, a delicate play, I was acutely aware of my predicaments therein. For me, it was not a game of chess or cards, but rather a true litmus test of my leadership. Therefore, I was straightforward in strategizing my options. From engaging with my top leadership team to consulting shareholders, I ensured the inclusion of all stakeholders in the conversation. My objective was to involve all levels of the organization, discussing the rationale and details with the team members who would be impacted.

Given the sensitivity, I found it daunting to determine where to start and how to communicate candidly. These sessions included some of the top guns who are on the frontlines and have supported me in running the organization for a long time. Moving forward, I proposed that each person retain a critical role, although some positions would shift. The sensitivity arose from the fact that a few individuals were being moved to pole positions based on their holistic performance, while others were being kept on standby as a Plan B. 

 I understood that “Every leader faces this dilemma: Do I fully trust my chosen people to lead and empower them, or do I phase them in gradually while keeping certain individuals as a backup plan?” At no point was I nervous or unclear. I was compassionate and clear in my engagement outreach with the team, ensuring that they trusted my judgment and the maturity of my intuition regarding their long-term interests.

This process began in response to a common question I received about succession planning: “If you were hit by a bus, what would happen to the organization?” It was indeed a logical question. As a responsible executive, I had the answer and the plan ready. 

 I believe that succession planning is one of the toughest responsibilities a leader carries. It is not just about naming a successor; it is about safeguarding the legacy, values, and future of the organization. This complexity increases in the case of an individualized corporation.

I recognized that every leader must face this dilemma, and I, too, needed to delve into this to provide my company with a sustainable mode. It was essential to choose and appoint trusted individuals. My trust was based not only on their character and loyalty but also on their capabilities. This consideration also meant keeping my options open for a Plan B. More importantly, I needed to ensure that stakeholders, including employees, clients, and shareholders with whom I have worked for many years, would trust the proposed options.

 Trust — The Heart of Succession

Trust is the foundation of any succession decision. A true successor, whether individual or as a team, will carry forward the organization's strategy, while also upholding its culture and spirit. The moot point here is that trust is never absolute. Personal trust and capability are not necessarily the same. Individuals can assume responsibilities with utmost sincerity and loyalty, but may not be able to deliver the results. 

 Leaders often witness flashes of brilliance coupled with moments of doubt. A person may excel in execution but falter in vision, or they may demonstrate loyalty while lacking the resilience needed for uncharted challenges.

 The risk of misplaced trust is not a personal issue. Nothing is personal in this context. During my discussions with my team, I was forthright in my engagement and communication. I was mindful that if this change fails, it could erode the confidence of employees, clients, and shareholders.

 Plan B Options 

I emphasized to my team the importance of having Plan B options, including partial phased empowerment and lateral succession leadership. These options were presented with complete transparency to ensure that they are not perceived among team members as betrayal or distrust. 

 Keeping options open can sometimes be misunderstood as disloyalty or distrust. However, in reality, it is a form of responsible leadership. Organizations are dynamic living systems - people evolve, markets shift, and priorities change. An individual who seems perfect today may not remain so tomorrow.

 A wise leader builds a bench of potential successors. This approach does not weaken trust in the primary choice; instead, it strengthens the organization’s resilience. It sends a powerful signal: leadership continuity will never be left to chance.

The Role of Plan B

In today’s volatile world, having a Plan B is essential rather than optional. Succession planning should be multi-layered:

·       Multiple pipelines: At least two or three potential successors should be nurtured across different functions.

·       Scenario planning: Different leaders may thrive under different business climates.

·       Governance awareness: Boards and key stakeholders should be informed of the options without creating uncertainty.

·       Cultural embedding: Values and leadership ethos should be institutional, not individual.

Balancing Trust and Caution

Succession planning requires a delicate balancing act. If there is too much doubt, it can suffocate the successor’s confidence. Therefore, it is essential to engage them with complete transparency and a clear assessment of potential outcomes. On the other hand, too much blind faith can expose the organization to unnecessary risks. True leadership involves extending trust while quietly preparing for contingencies. 

Succession planning is not about predicting a single future; rather, it is about ensuring continuity across various possible futures. This does not mean following an individual leadership style but instead aligning with a composite agenda. The leadership must ensure the organization change must have the team has the capability and readiness to ensure continuity.

 Trust deeply, but respect uncertainty enough to always have a Plan B. They must not defer succession planning due to fear of risks associated with the impending change but tread carefully to prepare the organization and build the succession line so that the likelihood of surprises is eliminated. As leaders, our responsibility is not only to choose successors but also to safeguard the company’s ecosystem, especially when it is thriving in its fundamental performance parameters.