You Don't Have a Succession Problem. You Have a Development Problem.
- Natasia Nolan-Hodge
- 4 days ago
- 4 min read
When the Bench Is Empty, Ask Who Was Supposed to Fill It.
I have watched organizations lose a key person and immediately scramble. Phones start ringing. People get pulled into hallway conversations. Someone ends up carrying work that was never theirs to absorb. And the person who just gave notice gets asked, on the way out, to transfer everything they spent years building.
None of that is a plan. It is what happens when there was never one.
What keeps getting in the way
The organizations I have seen struggle most with this share a common pattern. Revenue drives every decision. When budgets get tight, development gets cut first because it does not show up on a quarterly report. The logic is short term. The cost is long term.
A few capable people absorb the gap. They carry the client relationships, the institutional knowledge, the unwritten rules of how things actually get done. Leadership leans on that without asking what it costs or how long it can hold. The work keeps moving so nobody flags it as a problem.
At some point the people who have been carrying everything reach a limit. They leave, or things shift, or the organization cuts them. And that is when leadership realizes just how much was sitting on their shoulders.
Most organizations say succession planning is critical. Most also have no plan. That gap is not a mystery. It is the result of development being treated as optional every time something more immediate showed up.
The misclassification that makes it worse
When a transition goes badly, it usually gets called a succession problem. That framing sends organizations looking for the next person. It does not send them asking whether the conditions for a good transition were ever built.
The word succession implies a pipeline that ran dry. Most of the time there was no pipeline. There were people carrying more than they should have, and a repeated decision to let them keep carrying it rather than investing in what comes next.
Only 20% of HR leaders say they have leaders ready to fill their most critical roles. That number has been declining for over a decade. Organizations keep making the same call. Defer the investment until things settle down. Things never settle down.
When you name it correctly, the response changes. Instead of going outside to find the next person, you start asking whether the organization ever built the conditions for anyone inside to be ready. That is a different conversation. Most organizations have never had it.
What organizations should be doing instead
This is not about launching a formal succession planning process. It is about treating development as infrastructure rather than a budget line that disappears when the budget is under pressure.
Identify the skills that keep the lights on. Start with the core competencies the organization actually runs on. Not the skills on job descriptions. The capabilities that execute the strategy, maintain client relationships, and carry institutional knowledge. Those are the skills that need to be built deep, not concentrated at the top.
Build competency models around those skills. A competency model defines what the skill looks like at each level, what proficiency requires, and what progression looks like. Without it, development is informal and inconsistent. With it, people know where they are, what they need to build, and what the next level requires.
Create career paths from entry to senior. People need to see the road ahead. When there is no visible path, the best ones find one somewhere else. A structured career progression tied to the competency model gives the people worth keeping a reason to stay.
Put learning, development, and mentorship in place around all of it. Structured programs, stretch assignments, and consistent feedback are what actually build the bench. Not all at once. Not all formal. But consistent enough that people are building the skills the organization needs before a departure forces the conversation.
Why this matters now
Budgets are tighter. Teams are smaller. Senior people are carrying more than they should. And the instinct when resources shrink is to cut development first, because it does not show up on this quarter's numbers.
When development does not happen, the organization ties its capability to whoever is sitting in the role right now. When that person leaves, everything tied to them starts to unravel.
The organizations that hold up through this are the ones that kept investing in their people when it was hard, without waiting for a departure to make the case.
Before the next key person walks out, before the next contract demands capability the organization does not have, the problem is already in motion. Most organizations have been relying on a few people to hold everything up.
The succession problem is already here. It just has not announced itself yet.
Sources
[1] Wharton Executive Education / The Harris Poll. (2026). Succession Planning Reimagined. 86% of leaders say succession is critical; 70% say long-term planning feels futile.
[2] DDI. (April 2026). Succession Planning Best Practices: How to Close the Leadership Readiness Gap. Only 20% of HR leaders say they have leaders ready for critical roles.
Comments