Establish a clear, shared definition of readiness — typically the ability to step into a target role and perform effectively within a defined timeframe. Differentiate between job readiness (ready for a specific role), level readiness (ready for the next career level), and lateral readiness (ready for a role in a different function). Clarity of definition prevents inconsistent application.

Design a readiness model that assesses multiple dimensions rather than a single factor. Common dimensions include competency match (skills and behaviors required), experience breadth (range of relevant experiences), performance track record (consistency of strong results), learning agility (ability to adapt to new challenges), and motivation alignment (desire and commitment to the target role).

Define a consistent rating scale used across all readiness assessments — for example, Ready Now (can assume the role within 0-6 months), Ready Soon (1-2 years with targeted development), Ready Later (3-5 years with significant development), or Not Ready (does not demonstrate the foundational potential for the role). Ensure every rating has clear, objective criteria.

Create structured evaluation instruments for each dimension — competency-based interview guides, experience mapping templates, performance data review frameworks, learning agility assessments (e.g. Korn Ferry viaEDGE), and motivation questionnaires. Standardised tools ensure consistency across assessors and candidates.

Customize the readiness assessment for different target roles by weighting dimensions according to each role's unique requirements. A role requiring deep technical expertise may weight competency match more heavily, while a general management role may prioritise experience breadth and learning agility.

Review at least 3 years of performance history, examining consistency across different roles, teams, and business conditions. Strong performance in a single context may reflect favourable circumstances rather than genuine capability. Sustained performance across varied contexts is a much stronger indicator of readiness.

Use semi-structured interviews to explore the candidate's career aspirations, self-assessed strengths and gaps, experience highlights, and response to challenging situations. Interview both the candidate and their current and previous managers to triangulate perspectives on readiness.

Use validated psychometric instruments (e.g. Hogan Leadership Forecast, SHL Occupational Personality Questionnaire, Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal) to assess cognitive ability, personality traits, and potential derailers. Psychometric data provides objective insights that complement subjective manager assessments.

Analyse multi-rater feedback to identify patterns in how the candidate is perceived by superiors, peers, and direct reports. Pay particular attention to discrepancies between self-ratings and others' ratings, which may indicate blind spots that affect readiness for more senior roles.

Create an experience inventory for each candidate documenting their breadth of functional exposure, P&L management experience, international experience, crisis management, team building, and other relevant experiences. Compare this inventory against the experience requirements of the target role to identify gaps.

Facilitate cross-functional calibration meetings where leaders present their readiness assessments with supporting evidence and compare standards. Calibration prevents rating inflation, ensures that 'Ready Now' means the same thing in every part of the organization, and surfaces hidden talent that individual managers may have overlooked.

Convene a talent review board (typically the executive team plus CHRO) to discuss readiness assessments for the most critical succession candidates. Present each candidate's data comprehensively — performance, competencies, experience, psychometrics, and 360 feedback — and reach consensus on the readiness rating.

Record the specific evidence and reasoning behind each readiness decision. Documentation enables transparency, supports appeals or re-reviews, and creates an institutional record that can be referenced in future succession discussions. It also disciplines assessors to base ratings on evidence rather than impression.

Determine how readiness information will be shared with candidates — transparently (sharing the full assessment and rating) or partially (sharing development feedback without the explicit rating). Regardless of approach, the conversation should focus on development actions and be delivered by the candidate's manager with HR support.

Analyse aggregate readiness data to identify systemic gaps — e.g. if the majority of succession candidates lack international experience or P&L management, this indicates an organizational development gap requiring systemic intervention rather than individual development plans alone.

For each candidate, create a development plan that specifically targets the gaps identified in the readiness assessment. Plans should include a mix of on-the-job experiences (70%), coaching and mentoring (20%), and formal learning (10%), with clear milestones and timelines aligned to the desired readiness timeframe.

Research from the Center for Creative Leadership and Morgan McCall confirms that challenging experiences are the most powerful developer of senior leaders. Prioritise stretch assignments, cross-functional moves, and special projects that directly address the candidate's most critical readiness gaps.

Pair the most promising succession candidates with executive sponsors who can create opportunities, provide strategic coaching, and advocate for the candidate's development. Sponsorship accelerates development by opening doors that would otherwise remain closed.

Define specific, measurable milestones for each development plan and review progress every 6 months. Milestones should be tied to observable outcomes (e.g. 'Successfully led cross-functional project with positive stakeholder feedback') rather than activity completion (e.g. 'Attended leadership program').

Repeat the readiness assessment annually for all succession candidates to measure development progress, update ratings, and adjust development plans accordingly. Readiness assessments should be dynamic, reflecting each candidate's evolving capability rather than a one-time snapshot.

Assign the Head of Talent or equivalent as the process owner responsible for maintaining assessment tools, facilitating calibration sessions, training assessors, and reporting on outcomes. Clear ownership prevents the assessment process from becoming fragmented or inconsistently applied.

Provide comprehensive training to everyone involved in readiness assessment — including rating criteria, evidence requirements, bias awareness, calibration protocols, and feedback delivery. Assessor quality is the primary determinant of assessment validity and credibility.

When succession events occur, evaluate whether the readiness assessment accurately predicted outcomes. Track the success rate of candidates rated Ready Now who were subsequently appointed and assess their performance at 6 and 12 months. Predictive accuracy data validates the framework and identifies areas for improvement.

Examine the readiness dimensions, rating criteria, and assessment instruments each year to ensure they remain aligned with the organization's evolving leadership requirements. Solicit feedback from assessors and candidates on the clarity, fairness, and usefulness of the process.

Compare the organization's approach with methodologies published by DDI, Korn Ferry, Heidrick & Struggles, and the Corporate Leadership Council. Benchmarking identifies opportunities to incorporate new tools (e.g. AI-assisted assessment), improve calibration processes, or refine readiness dimensions.