A succession plan is incomplete if the organisation has selected a future manager but cannot continue today’s critical work when an experienced employee becomes unavailable. The practical test is whether another person can make the necessary decisions, locate the right records, handle exceptions and deliver the expected result without repeatedly calling the absent colleague. This is a process improvement problem as much as a talent management problem.
Research released by the Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) on 9 September 2026 found that only 40% of respondents considered their organisations effective at building bench strength for critical roles. In its global survey of nearly 800 business and HR leaders, only 18% reported high integration of succession with enterprise planning, and 14% reported strong integration with strategic workforce planning (i4cp, 2026). The figures describe respondents’ assessments, not an independently tested failure rate for every business.
Why the organisation chart hides the real exposure
Most organisations can identify their senior roles quickly. Fewer can immediately name who knows the contractual exception that prevents an incorrect payment, who can reconcile an unusual customer complaint, or who alone understands the manual adjustment used at month-end. A missing chief executive may be highly visible; a missing administrator who holds an undocumented work-around may stop customer service or financial reporting sooner.
The i4cp report found that organisations effective at building leadership bench strength were substantially more likely to report successful succession outcomes and to identify as high-performing. That relationship is useful evidence of an association, not proof that succession measures alone caused improved financial performance. The research also shows why concentrating the discussion exclusively on executive replacements misses risks in important non-managerial roles.
A useful starting point is the service or output the business must protect: payroll, order approval, regulatory reporting, claims handling, dispatch or customer onboarding. Follow that outcome backwards. Which decision requires undocumented judgement? Which system permissions are unique? Where does an exception wait for one particular person? The answer identifies a concentrated dependency, not merely a vacant job title.
Turn expert knowledge into a process another person can run
First, choose the critical work and record its trigger, essential inputs, normal sequence, decision rules, escalation route and completion evidence. Documenting every keystroke can become a burden; recording exceptions, controls, responsibilities and the conditions for judgement usually matters more. The Government of British Columbia describes a practical knowledge-transfer sequence of identification, prioritisation, capture/transfer and sharing/storage, including explicit attention to tacit knowledge (BC Public Service, 2024).
Second, transfer the work by observation and practice rather than by handing over a folder. An experienced colleague should demonstrate one ordinary case and one difficult exception. The proposed backup should then complete a comparable case independently under appropriate supervision. A supervisor can measure whether the output is correct, whether the handoff took too long and which decisions still needed clarification. Where privacy, safety or financial control prevents a live test, a realistic tabletop simulation is better than an untested assumption.
Third, use process improvement to reduce the dependency itself. Replace recurring memory-based choices with clear decision criteria, add a second appropriately authorised approver, create controlled access to records, and improve the route for escalating exceptions. Documentation, permissions, ownership and auditability must change together: sharing credentials or loosening controls simply to create a backup introduces another risk.
Measure continuity readiness, not the number of succession documents
A useful internal measure is the proportion of priority processes that a qualified backup has completed successfully in a recent test. Pair it with recovery time after owner absence, first-pass accuracy of the backup’s work, unresolved exceptions and the age of the underlying procedure. These are suggested operating measures; they are not metrics reported by i4cp. A quarterly sampling rhythm may be sensible for stable work, while high-change or high-risk processes need more frequent review.
Succession planning must also address future capabilities, not only today’s operating instructions. When a process changes because of legislation, technology or customer expectations, its successors need to learn the revised decision logic. Cross-training therefore works best as part of continuing process ownership: employees flag changes, leaders approve them, and backups rehearse the new standard before an emergency.
Where training fits. For professionals responsible for identifying process vulnerabilities, STEP Bootcamp offers a structured route to problem identification, analysis, improvement design and value measurement. Organisations can enquire about tailored STEP Corporate Training for teams that need to document, test and improve critical workflows. Explore STEP Bootcamp or enquire about STEP Corporate Training.
The practical question for a leadership team is not “Have we named a successor?” It is “Which important result would fail tomorrow if one person could not attend—and have we demonstrated that someone else can deliver it safely?” That is a much more useful starting point for continuity.
Sources and references
• i4cp | New Rules of Succession Management research announcement | 9 September 2026
• Government of British Columbia | Knowledge transfer process | updated 3 April 2024
Related OES reading: Progress Over Perfection in Process Improvement
Leave a Reply