Why ‘Succession Planning’ Is Often About Correction, Not Transition, According to Tom Wood

In a recent LinkedIn post, Tom Wood challenges the conventional understanding of “succession planning,” arguing that it is frequently misapplied and often reactive rather than proactive. Wood suggests that what is often labelled as succession planning is, in reality, a corrective measure for underperformance and a failure to adapt to evolving business needs.

Wood begins by highlighting the discrepancy between the tidy perception of succession planning and its messy reality in many organizations.

“Succession planning” sounds tidy. But it rarely is.

He elaborates that much of the consulting work related to this topic arises not from well-orchestrated transitions, but from situations where current leaders are no longer equipped to guide the business forward. Wood points out that individuals are sometimes retained because addressing their underperformance would cause disruption.

The Reality of Underperformance and Delayed Action

According to Tom Wood, this leads to a situation where “succession” becomes a euphemism for addressing underperformance, a process that almost invariably occurs too late. By the time the issue becomes apparent, the business has already suffered negative consequences, such as slowed performance and delayed decision-making. This urgency to hire, Wood notes, often results in fewer qualified candidates and increased costs.

The companies that handle this well don’t wait for it to break – they’re constantly asking a harder question: Are these the right people for where we’re going next, not just where we are today?

Wood emphasizes that effective organizations proactively address this challenge. They continuously evaluate their talent against future strategic needs, rather than solely focusing on current capabilities. This forward-looking approach, he argues, is crucial for sustained organizational health.

Proactive Talent Management vs. Reactive Correction

Tom Wood advocates for a more proactive stance. He suggests that organizations should foster a culture where talent is regularly assessed against the backdrop of future goals. This, in his view, prevents the scenario where businesses are outpaced by their own people.

And they act on it earlier than feels comfortable.

Wood proposes that this proactive approach does not need to be overly dramatic or involve significant personal conflict. The key, he asserts, lies in decisive action taken before performance issues become critical and damage the business. He concludes by reframing the concept:

Good succession planning isn’t about replacement, it’s about not getting caught out when the business outgrows its people.

In essence, Tom Wood’s insights on LinkedIn suggest that true succession planning is less about managing exits and more about ensuring the continuous alignment of leadership and talent with the organization’s trajectory and future ambitions. It requires foresight and a willingness to make potentially uncomfortable decisions early to safeguard long-term performance.