How Is a Succession Pool Built for Critical Positions?

Succession planning in organisations usually begins as a list-making exercise. Positions regarded as critical are identified, one or two names are written against each, and the list is reviewed once a year. Once that exercise is complete, the succession plan is assumed to be ready. Yet when a position becomes vacant unexpectedly, the picture that emerges on consulting the list is usually different: the name on it has either left the organisation, moved in another direction, or has not yet reached the level of readiness the role requires.

The underlying reason for this picture is the data on which the list was built. Succession lists are largely derived from performance appraisal results. An executive producing strong results in their current role is recorded as the natural candidate for the role above. Taken on its own, that assumption produces the most costly error in succession planning, because performance data shows what a person does in the role they occupy; it does not show how they will work in the next one.

The definition of a critical position is itself often passed over without sufficient work. A position is critical not because of where it sits in the hierarchy but because of how long its vacancy would disrupt the organisation's operations. Some roles that do not sit high on the organisation chart are harder to fill than senior positions, because of the technical knowledge or client relationships they carry. The first step in succession work is therefore not listing names but determining, against shared criteria, which roles are genuinely critical.

The concrete value of this work for organisations lies in how quickly a vacant position is filled. In organisations with a prepared pool, the decision process is measured in weeks; where no preparation has been done, the same process extends into months. That extension is not only a gap in management but also a slowing of teams held up by pending decisions.

At E&E Group, drawing on the assessment work we have carried out since 1992, we set out below the data layers on which pools for critical positions should rest, and how those pools are kept current.

What Performance Data Does and Does Not Show

Performance appraisal measures the extent to which defined objectives have been met within a defined role. The result achieved is a strong indicator of a person's capability in that role and is an indispensable input to succession work. That data does not, however, carry the same predictive power once the conditions of the role change.

A role one level up usually means work of a different nature. An executive producing results within their area of expertise becomes responsible in the role above less for their own contribution to the work and more for directing the work of others. Decision topics shift from clarity to uncertainty, data becomes scarcer, time pressure increases and results take longer to appear. How the same person will work under those conditions cannot be read from their performance record in their current role.

The moment this distinction becomes visible in organisations is generally the first months of an appointment. The areas in which a newly appointed executive struggles usually stem not from a lack of technical knowledge but from the change in how they work. Moving from being assessed on the results they produce themselves to being assessed on the results their team produces requires a new behavioural order. How long establishing that order takes varies from person to person, and it can be measured in advance.

A second limit is that performance data does not cover a person's own preference. Some of the executives named on succession lists do not share the career direction attributed to them. An executive who would prefer to advance through depth of expertise may not produce the expected result, for themselves or for the organisation, in a role carrying broad team responsibility. Where no data on job preferences is gathered, that mismatch becomes visible only once the appointment has been made.

Where this data is not gathered, the outcome organisations face generally takes one of two forms. Either the candidate declines the offer and the organisation is caught unprepared, or they accept the role but leave within a short period. In both cases the succession plan ceases to serve its purpose. Gathering job preference data while the pool is being built means this outcome surfaces at the planning stage rather than at the moment of appointment.

A third limit concerns the source of the assessment. Succession lists usually rest on managers' observations of their own teams. That observation is valuable but limited. A manager tends to see a team member as more ready to the extent that they are aligned with the manager's own way of working. Where a single criteria set is not used across the organisation, names coming from different units are not comparable with one another.

A fourth point is the time span performance data covers. Annual appraisals bring a person's most recent output to the fore. An executive who has recently led a visible project may be positioned more strongly than one who has produced steady results over a long period. Succession work, by its nature, requires a multi-year view. A candidate's trajectory across several periods, their consistency while working with different managers and their behaviour under demanding conditions provide a stronger indicator than the result of a single year.

These limits do not mean performance data should be excluded. What they mean is this: when a succession pool is built on a single data layer, the margin of error in the decision cannot be managed. The reliability of the pool increases when data of different kinds is assessed together.

Critical Roles: The Data Layers on Which the Pool Rests

A pool built for critical positions needs to consist of layers that complement one another. In the framework we apply in practice, those layers are as follows:

•      Results data: measurable output produced in current and previous roles, the size of the area of responsibility, and how that area has changed over time

•      Behavioural competency analysis: decision-making style, approach to uncertainty, behaviour in giving and receiving feedback, and tendencies in team management

•      Job preference data: the working conditions in which a person sustains their energy, the types of task they tend to avoid, and their own expectations regarding career direction

•      Record of responsibility: the scale of team and budget previously managed, and the roles held during demanding periods

•      Executive interviews: structured conversations in which the candidate conveys their own career expectations and scope for movement directly

The criteria against which these layers will be read must be defined at the outset. An assessment carried out without first setting out the profile the critical position requires establishes a candidate's general qualities but not their relationship to the role. In defining the role profile, alongside today's job description, where the position is heading over the coming period is also taken into account. The leadership of a unit whose structure is changing should be defined not as it stands today but as it will stand.

Of these layers, behavioural competency analysis and job preference data are the areas most often missing in organisations. Yet this is the layer that makes visible the distance between the behavioural pattern the role above requires and a person's current pattern. Measuring that distance does not produce a binary answer on whether a candidate is suitable; it shows in which areas, and how much, development work is needed. That is in fact the principal output of succession planning.

At E&E Group we have been the sole authorised representative of Harrison Assessments in Turkey since 2014, and within that scope we have carried out more than 3,000 assessments. The behavioural competency analysis and job preferences inventory used in this work set out a candidate's current profile in a form comparable with the profile the role requires. We examined the use of this data in promotion decisions in detail in our article on reducing the margin of error in promotion decisions.

The point to note in reading these layers together is that they do not substitute for one another. A development area appearing in the behavioural analysis of a candidate producing strong results does not warrant removing that candidate from the pool. Equally, weak results data for a candidate whose behavioural profile matches the requirements of the role is not on its own a sufficient indicator. The differences between layers often carry the most valuable information: they show under which conditions a candidate produces results and under which they struggle.

How the assessment is conveyed to the candidate also determines the quality of the work. Results that remain solely within the human resources function prevent the candidate from working on their own development areas. Results shared through a structured feedback conversation, by contrast, allow the candidate to direct their own preparation. Conducting those conversations with consultants experienced in interpreting inventory results ensures the data is read correctly.

Assessing the layers together also makes the pool comparable across the organisation. When candidates from different units are evaluated against the same criteria set, the succession list ceases to be the sum of individual managers' observations and becomes an organisational data set.

Keeping the Pool Current and Linking It to Development Planning

The aspect of a succession pool most often overlooked is that it is treated as a one-off exercise. Where the pool is not updated once created, each passing year reduces the validity of the list. The organisation's structure, the requirements of its positions and candidates' own expectations do not change at the same pace, but all of them change.

What works in practice is a full review of the pool once a year and a limited review every six months. In the full review, the list of critical positions is redefined, new candidates are included and the readiness level of existing candidates is updated. The interim review addresses only what has changed: candidates who have left, those who have moved roles, and progress recorded in development work.

Tying reviews to a set calendar sustains the work within the organisation. The point at which succession planning most often falters is its deferral amid a crowded agenda. This heading does not appear urgent until a position becomes vacant, and becomes the organisation's most urgent matter the moment it does. Setting the calendar in advance allows the work to continue independently of the conditions of the day.

Defining readiness not as a single label but as a time frame makes this work easier to run. A candidate being able to take on the role today and being able to take it on within a year produce different planning outcomes for the organisation. Having at least two candidates at differing readiness levels for each critical position preserves the organisation's room to manoeuvre when a vacancy arises suddenly.

The list of critical positions should itself be reassessed at each review. The organisation's direction of growth, newly opened lines of business and changes in digital infrastructure may bring roles to the fore that were not previously regarded as critical. Equally, some roles whose structure has changed may cease to be critical. Keeping the list fixed causes planning to run against the organisation's structure of several years ago rather than its structure today.

Where the pool is not linked to a development plan, the exercise remains an inventory list. The development areas identified through assessment need to translate into a concrete programme. Within that programme, executive coaching is one of the most frequently chosen methods for preparing a candidate for the role above; it allows the candidate to work by comparing their own behavioural pattern with the requirements of the role. Reassessing the output of that development work at set intervals shows whether the plan is progressing.

The content of development work also differs according to where a candidate stands. For some candidates, the need is greater depth in a particular competency area. For others, what is required is exposure to a different kind of responsibility. Taking on defined additional responsibilities in internal projects, working in a different unit, or working with operations in another region provides preparation that classroom-based work cannot. Designing the succession plan to include assignments of this kind keeps the pool from being an arrangement that exists only on paper.

How the succession pool is shared within the organisation is a further decision point. Keeping the list entirely closed weakens candidates' commitment to their own development work. Sharing it entirely openly, on the other hand, may lead to a loss of expectation among executives who do not appear on it. The balance that works in practice is to share with each person their own development areas and preparation process, while giving no commitment regarding a specific position.

Ownership of the pool also needs to be determined. Where succession planning is positioned solely as the work of the human resources function, lists reach the management agenda once a year and decisions continue to be taken according to the conditions of the moment. Senior management reviewing the pool directly at set intervals turns the plan into an organisational decision-making instrument. What is discussed in those reviews is not the ranking of names but the level of risk the organisation carries in its critical positions.

Finally, succession planning needs to extend beyond the organisation as well. Not every critical position is expected to be filled internally. Some roles require experience at a scale or in a field the organisation has not previously worked in. Distinguishing in the output of the pool exercise which positions will be filled internally and which through executive recruitment makes the planning realistic and shortens the time taken when a position falls vacant.

The value succession planning generates for an organisation is not limited to filling vacant positions quickly. The exercise itself provides a comprehensive view of the organisation's management population. Which competencies are strong across the organisation, where depth is limited and where development investment should be directed can all be read from that view. Once organisations hold this data, they can build development programmes around concrete areas of need rather than general headings.

A second output is the information it provides on the workforce's inclination to remain. An executive who can see their own development direction within the organisation is less likely to look elsewhere. Succession work is therefore not only a risk management instrument but also a stream of work directed at retaining critical staff. Assessing these two outputs together strengthens what the planning delivers within the organisation.

At E&E Group, since 1992 we have run executive assessment, executive coaching and executive recruitment processes together for organisations. For support in building and regularly updating a succession pool for your critical positions, you can contact us.