A strong successor can look unconvincing when assessed mainly against the current leader. The candidate may work differently, have a different network or lack the incumbent's familiarity with the board. Those differences matter only in relation to the job that needs doing next.
Succession planning should begin with that future job.
Define the next mandate
Describe the decisions the successor will face, the capabilities the organization already has and the gaps it must fill. Separate requirements from the incumbent's preferences.
Ask what evidence supports each candidate. Leading a successful function is relevant, but it may not demonstrate the ability to resolve conflicts across functions or allocate capital under uncertainty.
Give potential successors opportunities to do work that reveals those capabilities. State the purpose of the assignment and evaluate the result against consistent criteria. An informal impression gained from access to the CEO is an uneven basis for comparison.
Make disagreement about candidates useful
Have assessors record their views independently before discussing them. Where opinions differ, identify the evidence behind the difference rather than averaging the ratings immediately.
A candidate's development needs should be explicit. Some can be addressed before appointment; others may require support after it. Neither should be concealed by a general declaration that the person is ready.
Return to the mandate as conditions change. The person best suited to the previous strategy may not be the best choice for the next one.
