You can also access this resource, and many others, in Issue 365 of my Talent Edge Weekly newsletter.
One focus of succession planning is accelerating a successor’s readiness to perform effectively in a role they do not yet occupy. However, we can improve how we define readiness by going beyond general labels such as ready now, ready later, and future potential, often tied to arbitrary timeframes (e.g., 18 to 24 months). While these labels can provide useful directional guidance, by themselves they lack the specificity needed for more meaningful succession planning. I’ve shared other ways to think about readiness, such as the number of development moves away a successor is from being ready. Another is asking ready for what likely scenario?, since a turnaround, rapid growth, or transformation can influence readiness for the situation a successor may inherit. A recent conceptual paper adds another dimension: developmental readiness, or how ready someone is to benefit from development. Two successors may have similar development gaps but differ based on motivation, career stage, life circumstances, or whether they actually want the role. This is one reason transparency matters: listing someone who has little interest in the role or cannot pursue the required development may overstate bench strength and create succession risk. Where could you improve how you define and accelerate readiness to better account for business needs, successor aspirations, and what each successor is willing and able to do to become ready? These are the types of practical discussions we have in my private community, Talent Edge Circle.
