Most organizations treat succession planning as a once-a-year compliance exercise. Leaders fill out a grid, name a few potential successors, file it away, and nothing happens until someone unexpectedly leaves. Then the grid turns out to be stale, the named successors aren't ready, and the organization scrambles. The problem is rarely a lack of talent. It's that succession planning was disconnected from the actual work of developing people.
If you lead learning and development, you sit at the intersection where succession planning either comes alive or quietly dies. Here's how to make it real.
Start by identifying the roles that matter most. Not every position needs a formal succession plan. Spreading effort too thin is one of the fastest ways to make the whole process feel performative. Instead, focus on critical roles — positions where a vacancy would cause serious disruption to operations, strategy, or institutional knowledge. These aren't always the most senior titles. A plant manager who holds deep regulatory knowledge, a principal engineer who architects core systems, or a regional sales leader who owns key relationships can all be critical. Work with business leaders to map which roles, if left vacant for 90 days, would create measurable harm. That exercise alone often produces surprising clarity.
Once you've identified the critical roles, resist the urge to simply name successors. Instead, define what readiness looks like. What competencies, experiences, relationships, and knowledge does a person need to step into a given role and be effective within a reasonable timeframe? This is where L&D expertise becomes essential. Business leaders often describe readiness in vague terms — 'leadership presence' or 'strategic thinking' — and it's your job to translate those into observable, developable capabilities. Build a readiness profile for each critical role that is specific enough to guide development but flexible enough to account for different paths to the same destination.
With readiness profiles in hand, you can assess candidates honestly. A common pitfall is confusing high performance in a current role with readiness for a future role. Someone who consistently exceeds targets as an individual contributor may not be ready to lead a team, and that gap isn't a flaw — it's a development opportunity. Use structured assessments, talent review conversations, and multi-source feedback to evaluate where candidates stand relative to the readiness profile. Categorize them not as 'ready' or 'not ready' but along a continuum: ready now, ready in one to two years with development, or a longer-term prospect. This nuance matters because it directly shapes what kind of development investment each person needs.
Here is where learning and development does its most important work. For each successor candidate, create an individualized development plan that closes specific readiness gaps. This is not about enrolling people in generic leadership programs. The most effective succession development tends to involve stretch assignments, cross-functional projects, mentoring relationships, exposure to senior decision-making, and targeted coaching. If a future CFO candidate lacks experience with investor relations, find a way to get them into that context — shadowing, co-presenting, or leading a specific project. Formal learning has a role, but it supplements experience rather than replacing it.
A few common pitfalls deserve attention. First, watch out for the 'clone trap.' Organizations often default to looking for successors who resemble the current incumbent. This limits diversity and ignores the possibility that the role's demands will evolve. Frame readiness around future requirements, not just what the job looks like today. Second, avoid secrecy. While you don't need to announce successor names on a bulletin board, people who are being developed for future roles generally benefit from knowing it. Transparency creates accountability on both sides and makes the development plan feel purposeful rather than arbitrary. Third, guard against stagnation. Succession plans should be reviewed and updated at least quarterly, not just during an annual talent review. People leave, priorities shift, and someone who was a strong candidate six months ago may have moved in a different direction.
Finally, measure whether the process is working. Track how often critical roles are filled internally versus externally. Monitor time-to-productivity for internal successors versus outside hires. Pay attention to whether successor candidates are actually completing their development plans or whether those plans exist only on paper. These indicators tell you whether succession planning is a living system or a filing exercise.
Succession planning is ultimately an act of organizational courage. It requires leaders to confront uncomfortable questions: what happens if I leave, who isn't ready yet, and where are we underinvesting in people? L&D leaders are uniquely positioned to facilitate those conversations and to ensure that the answer to 'who's next?' is backed by real development, not just wishful thinking.