I’ve been an executive coach for over 25 years. My background is in psychology—I trained in Michigan and began my career as a clinical psychologist working in a medical setting. Early on, I noticed that many business professionals were seeking my consultation, often bringing up leadership challenges they were facing. I realized that, as a psychologist, I could offer valuable insights to help them navigate those issues. Over time, I transitioned fully into executive coaching, and I’ve truly come to enjoy it. These days, I work mostly virtually, often in partnership with Turknett Leadership Group, and primarily from my basement office.
Why do you think succession planning often gets deprioritized, even in organizations that value long-term strategy?
That’s a really good question to start with. I think one of the main reasons is that organizations don’t always see the immediate benefit of succession planning—even if it’s part of their long-term strategy or written into their mission statement. Because the payoff isn’t urgent or obvious, it often gets pushed aside until it bites.
How can companies view succession planning in a way that prioritizes it more or gives it a sense of urgency? What’s your advice?
Well, my advice—and I’ve written a bit about this in my book—is that companies need to face the reality. For example, McKinsey research shows that the average lifespan of Fortune 500 companies has dropped from around 60 years to just 15 to 20 years. That means without effective succession planning, even large companies can fail within two decades.
It’s a startling statistic, isn’t it? And the same applies to family businesses. Only about 30% of them survive into the second generation, and fewer than 10% make it to the third. So to truly grapple with this issue, organizations need to focus on the facts. So I think for them to grapple with this problem they just have to focus on the facts.
In your experience, how does succession planning intersect with legacy? How do leaders grapple with the idea of being replaced?
Well, succession planning is the portal—the mechanism—to extend or pass on the legacy. I mean, that is the way to do it. Without succession planning, there will be no legacy, because the values that the founders establish won’t be carried forward. People won’t make business decisions based on those foundations. So it’s the intrinsic prerequisite, if you will, for legacy to happen.
Now, as far as how leaders grapple with the idea of being replaced—I think it has a lot to do with pride. These are typically successful entrepreneurs or senior leaders, and for better or worse, it’s based on facts: they’ve built something very successful. And when people reflect on their own success, potential blind spots show up. They become less believing that others can do the same. So even if younger people have fresh ideas or different perspectives, they may be more resistant to being open to them.
My suggestion—based on leaders I’ve coached and what I’ve observed—is that the most successful leaders who are able to develop a legacy are the ones who are very successful themselves, but at the same time have this really humble, open attitude to learn from the younger generation and make that intersection or connection. Those leaders are rare, but I think it is possible. I would suggest that.
Have you ever seen a succession plan unintentionally reinforce bias or inequity? What can organizations do to avoid that trap?
Well, personally, I haven’t seen too many of these—except for family businesses. The typical scenario is nepotism—they don’t promote meritocracy. They prefer their own sons and daughters to run the business, even when there’s a misfit or they’re not prepared for it. So that’s the intrinsic bias right there. And often it’s very hard to avoid, because after all, it’s a family business. If they own a majority stake, founders often have such a massive struggle.
So I think it all goes back to how much they’ve really invested in that succession planning process to start off the second generation early, so they won’t be unprepared.
Now, what can commercial world organizations do to avoid that? They just have to be honest, frankly. I mean, most companies will have their values and mission statement around promoting equity, offering opportunities to all on an open and transparent basis, based on meritocracy. So I think senior leaders just need to have a regular address or confrontation of these issues.
Can you share an example from your work where succession planning was done really well – or where it went off track? What made the difference?
Well, what went well in some cases I’ve seen is when senior leaders quite quickly identify a few high potentials who are not only high performers, but also have the right mindset. Because at the end of the day, as psychologists, we understand that people’s behavior is largely predictable, and the most robust factors are statistically based on their value system.
And as soon as they start that process early on—let’s say if they’re about to retire in five years—they need to start thinking ahead: who could be the one replacing them or be their successor? And those tend to fare very well.
The ones who don’t succeed are the ones who don’t plan. It has to be very intentional, even like I alluded to earlier, when there’s no perceived immediate reward. But this again is one of those things—you cannot kick it down the road. It’ll bite when it happens, whether it’s a medical issue or early retirement. They’ll just be unprepared. And that often ends up in a bad situation.
What’s a question leaders should be asking themselves – but often don’t – when thinking about who will lead after them?
One of the features I included in my book is a journal section to help leaders think through what’s important to them. For example, in chapter one—which is titled The Foundational Legacy—the journal section starts with this question: What legacy did I inherit, knowingly or unknowingly, from my mentors, significant others, or business leaders?
This let’s them think about the big picture and what they really want to pass on, because they personally benefited from that legacy. Once they’re more aware of what’s already been instilled or inculcated in them, they’ll be a lot more natural, more intentional, about passing it on.
So I suppose one direction to that question is to prioritize self-awareness of their own successful experience. And there are other questions too, even something as simple as: What values do I really hope to keep—or reject? And at the end of the day: What really matters to me, and to the company? I think those are really core questions to ask.
What are some practical steps leaders can take today to start building a succession-ready team?
Well, if they really judge this as a priority—if they see it as beneficial—they just have to schedule time. That’s a practical step. Meet with a few senior leaders regularly to revisit what it takes to build a succession-ready team. I like that terminology. You have to have a bench of leaders who are ready.
It’s almost like, let’s say, when our president flies—just a couple days ago to Alaska on Air Force One—there’s always a backup plane. He doesn’t fly alone. Even though the audience only sees one plane, in fact, Air Force One has two. There’s always a backup, because life happens, business happens, and we’re not as predictable as we like to think.
So I think having a succession-ready team starts with regular scheduling of these meetings. And just be bold and direct. Another practical idea is to maybe delegate a couple of leaders during those meetings to share: What have I learned from my competitor or even across industries? What have they done that explains their longevity? They can cite comparable examples, either in size or within the same industry, so they don’t have to reinvent the wheel.
That’s another thing I’ve learned—smart business leaders are very efficient and effective. The reason is, they don’t just sit and think all day long or experiment only with their own approach. They try to learn from what’s already been learned by others. And that makes the process of developing a succession-ready team a lot more efficient and effective.
Any final words for our readers?
Well, I would say—I want to introduce an image that I explain in my book. When you think about succession planning, it’s really like a relay race in track and field. Let’s say there are four athletes on one team. Think of that word picture for a moment.
Once a team is successful, typically the reason they win the gold medal isn’t just about individual performances anymore. It’s all about the transition process—handing the baton to the next athlete. That is, again, the most robust factor for team success.
So my word of encouragement would be: think of that example, and see what you can glean from it. Apply those principles to your succession planning.
