The Succession Planning Trap: How Preserving Leadership Egos Undermines Organizational Growth

Succession planning is often framed as a strategic virtue. It’s the responsible safeguard against disruption, the blueprint for continuity, the mark of a mature organization. But beneath its polished reputation lies a quiet dysfunction: most succession plans are designed not to evolve leadership - but to preserve it.

Only 19% of U.S. organizations have a formal succession plan. That statistic is usually presented as a crisis. But what if it’s a signal? A signal that the traditional model of succession - grooming a chosen few to inherit power - is increasingly out of step with the demands of a complex, fast-moving world.

The Ego Preservation Problem

Succession planning often centers on continuity. But continuity of what? Too often, it’s continuity of leadership style, philosophy, and ego. Organizations build plans that replicate the past, not reimagine the future. They select successors who mirror current leaders, reinforcing legacy thinking rather than challenging it.

This isn’t just a cultural issue - it’s a strategic one. When succession becomes a mechanism for ego preservation, it stifles innovation. It creates leadership pipelines that are technically prepared but culturally stagnant. And it sends a clear message to emerging leaders: fit in, don’t disrupt.

The Illusion of Readiness

40% of companies report having no internal candidate ready to step into the CEO role. That’s typically seen as a failure. But maybe it’s a sign of honesty. Leadership today isn’t about being “ready” - it’s about being responsive. It’s about navigating ambiguity, not executing a script.

Trying to “ready” someone for a future role assumes that the role itself won’t change. But the best leaders aren’t groomed - they’re grown. And they’re grown in environments that value experimentation, not replication.

The Cost of Overplanning

Companies lose an average of $1.8 million per year from poorly managed leadership transitions. But many of those failures stem from rigid planning, not a lack of it. Succession plans often focus on individuals - who will take over, when, and how. But they rarely ask: What kind of leadership does the organization need next?

When succession becomes a checklist, it loses its strategic edge. It becomes a bureaucratic exercise that protects roles instead of advancing purpose.

A Better Alternative: Leadership Fluidity

Instead of rigid succession plans, organizations should invest in leadership fluidity. That means:

• Rotating leadership responsibilities to build adaptive capacity.

• Creating cross-functional leadership labs where emerging leaders solve real problems.

• Designing roles for resilience, not just replacement.

• Normalizing leadership exits as opportunities for reinvention.

Leadership fluidity doesn’t eliminate succession - it redefines it. It shifts the focus from preserving power to distributing it. From planning for continuity to designing for evolution.

What Are You Planning For?

Succession planning isn’t wrong - it’s just incomplete. In a world that rewards agility, the best way to prepare for the future isn’t to predict it. It’s to build a culture that can thrive no matter who’s in charge.

So before you draft another succession chart, ask yourself: Are you planning for leadership - or are you preserving legacy?