Ensure the board of directors (or a dedicated nomination/talent committee) reviews succession plans for C-suite and key executive roles at least annually. Board oversight is a governance best practice endorsed by the UK Corporate Governance Code and institutional investors such as BlackRock, who expect transparent succession planning.

Define the leadership capabilities required to execute the 3-5 year strategy and use these as the foundation for successor profiling. Succession planning is not about replacing the current leader with a clone — it is about identifying the leadership profile the organization will need in its future context.

Determine which roles are in scope — at minimum, all C-suite positions and their direct reports. Many organizations also include critical individual contributor roles and revenue-generating positions. Document the criteria for including a role in the succession plan.

Assign the CHRO or Head of Talent as the process owner responsible for facilitating succession reviews, maintaining documentation, and driving accountability. Define a clear annual calendar including data gathering, individual assessments, talent review meetings, and board presentations.

Connect succession planning with performance management, high-potential identification, leadership development, and workforce planning. Succession planning in isolation produces a list of names; integrated succession planning produces a pipeline of ready leaders backed by deliberate development investment.

Define the competencies, experiences, relationships, and personal attributes required for success in each leadership role. Include both current requirements and anticipated future requirements based on strategic direction. Use tools such as Korn Ferry's Leadership Architect or Hogan's leadership model to structure the profile.

For every role in the succession plan, nominate at least two internal candidates at varying stages of readiness. Having multiple successors reduces key-person risk and creates healthy developmental competition. Avoid single-candidate plans, which are fragile and limit optionality.

Categorise each successor as 'Ready Now' (can step into the role immediately), 'Ready in 1-2 Years' (with targeted development), or 'Ready in 3-5 Years' (longer-term pipeline). Base readiness assessments on competency data, 360 feedback, psychometric assessments, and performance track records.

Commission external executive assessments for candidates identified as potential near-term successors. These assessments typically include cognitive testing, personality profiling (e.g. Hogan), structured interviews, and simulation exercises. External assessment provides objective data and reduces the influence of internal politics.

Audit the succession plan for demographic diversity — gender, ethnicity, age, and background. If the pipeline lacks diversity, examine the identification and development processes for structural barriers. Research from McKinsey consistently demonstrates that diverse leadership teams outperform homogeneous ones.

Design a targeted development plan for each named successor that addresses their specific readiness gaps. Plans should include stretch assignments, executive coaching, board exposure, cross-functional rotations, and formal education. The 70-20-10 development model (experience, relationships, education) should guide the activity mix.

Engage ICF-credentialed executive coaches for succession candidates in the 'Ready in 1-2 Years' category. Coaching should focus on the specific competency gaps identified in the readiness assessment and include measurable development goals reviewed at 6-month intervals.

Deliberately expose succession candidates to the types of challenges they will face in the target role — such as leading a cross-functional transformation, managing a P&L, navigating a crisis, or representing the organization with external stakeholders. The Center for Creative Leadership's research confirms that challenging experiences are the most powerful developer of executive capability.

Arrange for succession candidates to present to the board, participate in strategic planning sessions, and interact with key external stakeholders such as investors, regulators, and partners. Exposure builds visibility, develops executive presence, and allows the board to evaluate candidates firsthand.

Review each succession candidate's development plan quarterly, assessing progress against milestones, adjusting activities based on emerging needs, and recalibrating the readiness assessment. Development is not linear — regular review ensures plans remain relevant and impactful.

Create a standardised transition plan covering the announcement strategy, knowledge transfer process, stakeholder communication, first 90 days support, and role handover checklist. Planned transitions should be orchestrated events, not improvised reactions.

Establish a structured knowledge transfer period (ideally 3-6 months of overlap) where the outgoing leader briefs the successor on strategic priorities, key relationships, pending decisions, organizational history, and cultural nuances. Document critical institutional knowledge that might otherwise be lost.

Draft communication plans for internal employees, the board, investors, customers, and partners that position the transition positively and provide reassurance of continuity. The narrative around a leadership change significantly influences stakeholder confidence and organizational stability.

Even internal promotions require structured onboarding into a new leadership role. Provide a 90-day plan, executive coaching, introductions to new stakeholders, and regular check-ins with the CHRO or CEO. Research from Egon Zhender shows that 40% of new executives fail within 18 months, often due to inadequate transition support.

Present the updated succession plan to the board annually, including changes to the pipeline, development progress, readiness assessments, and any gaps that require attention. Board engagement ensures succession planning receives the strategic priority and investment it deserves.

Report on key metrics including the percentage of critical roles with at least one Ready Now successor, the percentage with multiple successors, pipeline diversity, and the ratio of internal to external appointments. These metrics quantify the health and maturity of the succession program.

When succession events occur, assess how well the succession plan predicted the outcome — was the eventual appointee on the plan? Were they at the predicted readiness level? This retrospective analysis improves the accuracy of future assessments and identifies blind spots in the process.

Compare the organization's succession planning processes with best practices from research firms (DDI, CEB/Gartner, Korn Ferry) and peer organizations. Benchmarking identifies opportunities to strengthen governance, assessment, development, and transition support.

After each succession event and each annual review cycle, capture what worked well and what could be improved. Common improvements include expanding the scope of roles covered, strengthening readiness assessments, increasing development investment, and improving board reporting.