Succession planning often feels like a much bigger undertaking than it needs to be.
Many HR teams assume they need to evaluate every role, identify successors across the organization, define development plans, and build a complete process before they can make meaningful progress.
That expectation can make succession planning feel difficult to start—and the gap between intention and execution is clear. While 86% of leaders consider leadership succession planning an urgent or important priority, only 14% believe their organization does it well. Meanwhile, only 20% of HR leaders say they have leaders ready to fill most of their organization’s critical roles.
Organizations recognize the urgency, but many still lack both a manageable process and the leadership readiness they need.
Yet when the process begins with too broad a scope, it often leads to familiar outcomes: a spreadsheet that quickly becomes outdated, a process limited by basic HRIS functionality, or an initiative that never fully gets off the ground.
The issue isn’t that succession planning is inherently too complex. More often, organizations are simply trying to solve too much from the beginning.
The best place to start succession planning is with the roles that present the greatest risk if left vacant—not every position in the organization. By narrowing the initial scope, organizations can begin building meaningful visibility without trying to create a complete program all at once.
One of the biggest misconceptions about succession planning is that it needs to include every position in the organization from day one.
In reality, not every vacancy creates the same level of risk.
Some positions are considered Key Roles because a vacancy would have a significant impact on operations, revenue, customer relationships, regulatory obligations, or institutional knowledge. Others may be easier to recruit for or already have strong internal coverage.
When every role is treated as equally urgent, teams can spend so much time collecting information that they lose sight of the larger goal: understanding where the most risk exists.
Starting with these business-critical positions gives organizations a more focused and manageable entry point into succession planning.
Many organizations begin their succession planning process in a spreadsheet because it’s familiar and accessible.
That may work initially. But as more roles, successors, readiness ratings, and development activities are added, maintaining the information can become a project of its own.
HR teams may find themselves chasing updates, comparing different versions, and trying to confirm whether the information is still accurate.
At that point, the succession planning process becomes focused on maintaining data rather than strengthening leadership readiness.
The same challenge can arise when succession planning is managed through an HRIS that provides only basic functionality. The organization may be able to record successor names, but still lack the visibility needed to understand readiness, development progress, bench strength, and leadership risk.
Another reason succession planning becomes difficult to sustain is unclear ownership.
HR often initiates and facilitates the process, but the leaders closest to each Key Role are better positioned to understand its requirements, potential successors, and development needs. They play an essential role in identifying potential successors, assessing readiness, supporting development, and keeping plans current.
When HR is responsible for every update, succession planning can become an annual administrative exercise.
But when leaders are actively involved, it triggers a cultural shift and succession planning becomes part of how the organization develops talent and prepares for change.
The most practical place to start succession planning is not with every role, every successor, or every possible transition. It’s with a focused understanding of where leadership vacancies would create the greatest risk.
Even an initial effort can help leaders understand which roles create the greatest continuity risk, where successor coverage is limited, and where development may need to be prioritized.
From there, the process can mature over time.
The goal isn’t to predict every future vacancy or create a perfect plan for every role. It’s to build a clearer understanding of leadership risk and begin preparing future talent before a transition becomes urgent.
Leadership changes are inevitable, and many organizations remain underprepared when critical positions become vacant. Succession planning becomes much more manageable when organizations stop trying to solve everything at once and begin building readiness in a focused, practical way.
For a practical breakdown of how to build that foundation, operationalize the process, and create momentum, download The 90-Day Leadership Continuity Playbook.
