Most corporate management programmes include a module dedicated to planning for substitutes, replacements… and, above all, succession.
However, many executives—including those in medium to large companies—seem to have set aside this fundamental principle. Admittedly, there is nothing spectacular about it. But in an increasingly complex operational context, it has become an essential step.
Planning and preparing substitutes, providing ongoing training, anticipating transitions: this is not an ‘extra’ management exercise. It is good managerial sense.
Some managers claim that this is self-evident—that they do it ‘intuitively’ daily. This is a good starting point. But too often, this intention is not translated into clear, transparent and structured communication. And that is precisely where the system breaks down.
Many are reluctant to formalise these plans, for fear that some candidates will ‘move up the ranks’ too quickly… or that others will leave the company, disappointed at not being on the list of potential successors. This reasoning is flawed.
The first quality of a manager is to inspire confidence — and confidence is based on transparency. If the names of potential replacements or emerging talents cannot be put on paper, then there is a problem with the governance of the organisation. For many years, I had the privilege of participating in these planning discussions. They left me with precious memories — not only because they forced us to think about the development of our teams, but also because they paved the way for essential strategic debates:
• The objectives to be achieved — and the means to achieve them.
• The composition of the teams — and the development of each person’s skills.
• Training needs — and the levers for skills development.
• Everyone’s position — within the organisation and in terms of future developments.
These discussions, although delicate, were often constructive and revealing. They provided a better understanding of each other’s expectations — and allowed us to align them with the needs of the company.
Carefully prepared, they helped to clarify situations and plan training, mobility, transitions… and even departures — in a calm and respectful manner.
Since 2019, observing certain companies — prospects or clients — I have been struck by the lack of foresight, even secrecy, surrounding succession planning.
Unspoken words, unarticulated expectations, rumours about promotions: these are all factors that undermine operational efficiency. Sometimes they even lead to passive resignation — employees who disengage due to a lack of prospects or recognition. The argument that ‘plans change all the time’ does not hold water. Having a planning framework, even if it is evolving, is an asset. It doesn’t matter if it is revised regularly — its very existence is a sign of seriousness.
For teams, knowing that succession decisions are not the result of chance or personal affinities, but of a structured process, is a factor of stability and confidence. Yes, these exercises consume time and resources. But they are a form of strategic insurance.
You don’t take out fire insurance hoping your house will burn down. You do it to be prepared if the worst happens.
Similarly, succession planning is not about anticipating a crisis — it’s about preparing for continuity. And that’s what allows a company to remain resilient, successful and human.
As you should, take care, see you soon
Enjoy reading — and see you soon.