When organizations talk about succession planning, the conversation almost always centers around people. Who will step in when the current CEO retires? Who will lead the development team if the director leaves? It’s a game of musical chairs, hoping there’s a warm, capable body ready to take the next seat. A name gets slotted in to replace another name; boards feel relief that a vacancy won’t linger.
This mindset, focused narrowly on replacing individuals, often misses the deeper opportunity.
Think of it this way: If your best fundraiser resigns, the goal isn’t to hire someone “just like them.” The goal is to ensure that the relationships they nurtured, the pipeline they built and the strategies they refined are documented, transferable and measurable. You’re not replacing a person — you’re replacing their outputs.
Which means that there are better questions we should be asking: What are we trying to preserve when a leader transitions out? Is it their presence and personality, or is it the systems, relationships, insights and impact they’ve cultivated?
The same applies across every department. What processes did the departing operations lead streamline? What innovations did the outgoing program director implement? If your strategy hinges on retaining specific individuals rather than retaining institutional knowledge and replicable results, you’re building fragility into your organization.
This isn’t to downplay the importance of strong leaders. But every strong leader eventually transitions out, whether through retirement, resignation, promotion or crisis. If their departure creates chaos, it’s not their fault. It’s a sign that the organization failed to translate leadership into infrastructure. Outputs, by contrast, can be codified.
Instead of succession planning, we need success planning.
Continue reading on eJP