Most organizations say they do succession planning. Far fewer do it well. The typical version involves a once-a-year meeting where senior leaders put names next to boxes on an org chart, file the document away, and never look at it again until someone unexpectedly leaves. That's not succession planning — it's wishful thinking with a timestamp.
Real succession planning is an ongoing practice that identifies the roles most critical to organizational performance, assesses who could grow into those roles, and deliberately builds their readiness through development experiences. When done well, it becomes one of the strongest bridges between talent management and learning and development.
Start by identifying the roles that matter most. Not every position needs a formal succession plan. The instinct is to focus exclusively on the C-suite, but critical roles exist at every level. A critical role is one where a vacancy would cause significant disruption to operations, strategy, revenue, or institutional knowledge. Think about roles that sit at the intersection of multiple business functions, roles that require deep technical expertise that takes years to build, and roles where the external talent market is thin. You might find that a plant manager, a lead data architect, or a regional sales director is just as critical as a vice president. Map these roles first, and resist the urge to make the list too long. If everything is critical, nothing is.
Once you have your critical roles identified, assess the current bench. This means looking at potential successors honestly — not just who has been around the longest or who the current incumbent likes. You need to evaluate people on two dimensions: their performance in their current role and their potential to succeed in a larger or different one. These are not the same thing. A brilliant individual contributor may not have the leadership capacity for a director-level role, and a mid-level manager who seems unremarkable today may have significant untapped potential. Use structured assessments, multiple perspectives, and behavioral evidence rather than gut feel.
The next step is where learning and development becomes essential: building readiness. Identifying someone as a potential successor without investing in their development is like drafting a player and never putting them on the practice field. Readiness is built through a combination of formal learning, stretch assignments, mentoring, coaching, cross-functional exposure, and increasingly complex leadership responsibilities. The most powerful development happens through real work — leading a project outside their comfort zone, stepping in during a leader's extended absence, or taking on a turnaround situation. L&D teams should work closely with business leaders to design these experiences intentionally, not leave them to chance.
Development plans for succession candidates should be specific and time-bound. Rather than vague goals like "develop strategic thinking," a strong plan might include leading the annual planning process for a business unit, participating in a cross-functional task force on market expansion, or completing a structured executive education program focused on financial acumen. The plan should close specific gaps between where the candidate is today and what the target role demands.
Now, the pitfalls — and there are several that show up repeatedly.
The first is secrecy. Some organizations treat succession plans as classified documents, afraid that telling someone they are being developed for a bigger role will create entitlement, or that telling someone they are not on the list will cause them to leave. In practice, most high-potential employees already have a sense of where they stand, and the absence of a conversation is more damaging than a candid one. You do not have to promise anyone a specific role, but you should be transparent about development expectations and opportunities.
The second pitfall is the single-candidate plan. If you have only one name next to a critical role, you do not have a succession plan — you have a single point of failure. Aim for at least two candidates at varying stages of readiness for each critical role.
The third is neglecting diversity. Succession planning that draws from the same narrow talent pools cycle after cycle will replicate existing leadership demographics and miss the perspectives the organization needs. Actively look for high-potential talent across functions, geographies, and backgrounds.
The fourth is treating it as an annual event rather than a living process. Business priorities shift, people leave, new talent emerges. Succession plans should be reviewed and updated quarterly, not annually.
Finally, succession planning should not live in isolation from your broader L&D strategy. The competency gaps you surface during succession reviews are a rich source of insight for program design, coaching investments, and content curation. When L&D leaders have a seat at the succession planning table, they can align development resources to the organization's most consequential talent needs — and that is where learning creates the most strategic value.