How to Build a Real and Accountable CEO Succession Plan That Withstands Pressure

Treat it the same way you handle Cybersecurity. If your plan cannot survive a table top simulation, it will never survive the real thing.

Hey there Senior Leader,

Picture this.

You’re wrapping up your evening when your phone buzzes. The CEO is stepping down. Effective tonight.

No successor named. No press release drafted. No plan in motion.

In less than twelve hours, the board convenes. Investors are watching. Analysts will start calling. Employees will be wondering what just happened.

You are no longer preparing for a future event. You are living the stress test.

Now ask yourself, how real is your succession plan?

It’s the Theater of Succession and most organizations are playing a part.

Succession planning has become performance art. Everyone says the right things. Leaders nod in meetings. Talent reviews happen. Documents are built. Boxes are checked. No one asks the hard questions.

Until they have to.

The plans look polished. There are charts. Ratings. Slide decks showing who’s “Ready Now,” “Ready in One to Two Years,” and “Emerging.”

But these plans have one fatal flaw: they are not designed to work in real time.

They are static. They are vague. And they are not stress tested.

In a real emergency, they collapse. And when they do, the organization is left scrambling, while the board wonders why all the assurance from previous years now feels like false comfort.

That is not a plan. That is a liability dressed up in bullet points.

Boards Ask Because They Are Nervous

Boards do not inquire about succession planning out of curiosity or just good governance. They ask because they are nervous.

They are nervous that what sits behind the words “leadership pipeline” is nothing more than a list of names with theoretical readiness. They are nervous that the plan sounds good but cannot hold up in a real disruption. They are nervous that if something happened to the CEO tonight, the next board meeting would feel more like triage than transition.

When a director asks, “Who is ready to step in?” they do not want possibilities. They want proof.

They do not want to hear that “We have a number of strong internal candidates.” They want to know exactly who those people are, what they have done, and whether they could hold the room during an earnings call without blowing up the stock.

In short, the board is testing leadership credibility.

And a vague or overly optimistic response is worse than saying nothing at all. It signals that leadership is more committed to optics than to outcomes.

Real Succession Starts with Outcomes

Here’s the first mindset shift.

Potential is not the point. Readiness is.

Succession planning that focuses on potential is the corporate equivalent of buying lottery tickets. It relies on hope, not evidence.

Potential means someone shows early promise. Readiness means they’ve delivered outcomes. And outcomes are the only currency that matters in a succession event.

Ask yourself:

• Did they lead through uncertainty?

• Have they been accountable for real business decisions?

• Have they owned a P&L? Scaled a team? Managed a crisis?

• Did they grow something that needed to grow, or fix something that was broken?

You cannot assess future leadership based on personality tests, presentation skills, or how well they navigate internal politics.

You assess readiness by examining the hardest problems they have already solved.

If you cannot link a succession candidate to business outcomes, they are not a candidate. They are a placeholder.

Name the Names. Then Name the Gaps.

Let’s get specific.

If your CHRO cannot walk into a boardroom and say:

• Here are the three people we are developing for CEO

• Here is exactly where they are in their journey

• Here is what they still need to do before they are ready

• And here is who we have ruled out

Then the succession plan is not a plan. It is a wish list.

Boards want names. Not “emerging leaders.” Not “high potentials.” Actual names. With accountability attached to each one.

And next to those names, they want gaps. Because every candidate has them.

The goal is not perfection. The goal is progress.

Succession planning is not about hiding development needs. It is about exposing them, aligning support, and holding leaders accountable for filling those gaps over time.

A plan that only shows strengths is not a plan. It is a brochure.

False Readiness Is More Dangerous Than No Plan

There is something worse than having no plan. That is having a plan that is wrong.

A plan that includes candidates who have never been tested. Leaders who have plateaued but no one wants to admit it. Names that have been on the chart for three years with no measurable progress.

This is a dangerous kind of optimism. It convinces leadership that succession is covered when it is not. It creates a false sense of security. And when the moment comes, that plan evaporates.

If no one ever gets removed from the succession plan, your plan is not honest. It is participation-based. And I realize, sometimes that is going to take a fight. You need to have it.

Real succession planning requires making hard calls. Not everyone is on a growth trajectory. Some have peaked. Others do not want the next job, even if they say they do. And a few are political survivors with strong narratives and weak track records.

Keeping those people on the chart delays development for the ones who actually have a shot, and it wastes the board’s trust.

Tabletop It Like a Crisis, Not a Class

The best way to test a plan is to break it.

This is where most companies fail. They build theoretical plans. But they never simulate what happens if the plan has to go live.

You would never roll out a disaster recovery protocol without testing it. You would never trust your cyber response without rehearsing it. Why treat succession differently?

Run the tabletop.

Build the scenario: The CEO resigns. Effective immediately. By tomorrow morning, the board meets.

Who becomes acting CEO?

Who faces the investors?

Who speaks to the media?

Who runs the earnings call in two weeks?

Who calms the organization?

What gets delayed? What keeps moving?

Then ask the room: Do we believe this person is capable? Not someday. Today.

If you cannot answer that question confidently in real time, your plan is not operational. You want to actively seek out the hesitation. That’s what tells you it needs more work. Embrace it!

Five Brutal Questions That Expose the Truth

1. If the CEO resigns tonight, who takes over tomorrow, and will the board and the Street follow them without hesitation?
   This is about trust, presence, and proof. Name the person. Then ask whether they can walk into that boardroom and hold the moment.

2. Will the executive team align behind that leader or start protecting turf before noon?
   Succession exposes team dynamics fast. If alignment is assumed but not tested, prepare for fractures when pressure hits.

3. What three facts would make the board or investors question this person’s readiness, and have those risks been addressed directly?
   Skip the vague “growth areas.” Name the risks out loud. If no one is nervous, you have not yet found the truth.

4. Which critical decisions, business lines, or customer relationships would stall or decline in the first 90 days?
   Succession is operational. You must be able to pinpoint the areas of disruption.

5. Who comes after that person, and are two successors already in motion beneath them?
   If the plan ends with the next CEO, it is not a succession strategy. It is a countdown to your next crisis, which might be starting now. And if the answer is no there are no successors, should they really be the one elevated?

If the answers to these questions are hesitant or murky, that is not failure.

That is clarity.

You have uncovered the gap, and that puts you ahead of most.

Talent Sherpa’sKey Takeaways

Let’s keep it clean and sharp.

• Succession is not a concept. It is a capability. Your plan either works or it fails. There is no middle ground.

• Run the tabletop. Simulate the CEO exit. Force the system to respond. Look for what breaks.

• Make the CEO lead it. If your CEO treats succession like a quarterly task, they are not protecting the company. They are betting on luck.

• Tie development to outcomes. Stretch assignments should be real. Feedback should be direct. Readiness lives in results.

• Move succession into operating cadence. If you are not reviewing successors quarterly, you are not serious.

• Treat it like enterprise risk. Succession is no different from cybersecurity. If it is not tested, it will fail.

---

The Question Is Not If. It Is When.

Here is reality.

Leadership changes are coming faster than ever. Shareholder pressure is increasing. Volatility is rising. CEO tenure is shortening.

You will probably not get a six-month runway. You will get a phone call. Trust me, I’ve had to answer that call.

The companies that survive these moments have done the hard work ahead of time. They have built leaders who are not perfect, but are prepared. They have tested the plan, told the truth, and aligned behind outcomes.

They are not surprised when the call comes.

They are ready.

And if your company cannot say the same, then the time to act is now.