Succession Plan Transparency (Part 1) — Why Not To Inform Employees of Their Part

Organizations tend not to disclose details of their succession plans or inform individual employees that they may be chosen to take on critical roles in the future.  The discussion below examines a number of reasons why organizations elect not to inform candidates about their part in the succession plan.  However, the discussion also touches on how the potential negative consequences of disclosure can be avoided or lessened.

A subsequent installment, “Succession Plan Transparency (Part 2): Why You Should Inform Employees of Their Part”, will examine the reasons why companies should tell employees about their part in the succession plan.

(1) The information will be shared by those employees who are part of the plan and the company will lose control of the messaging.

There may be a fear that staff will become less productive as the information fuels discussion and gossip.  But if these kinds of issues do arise will they simply be the result of telling individuals about their role in the succession plan?  Or will they actually result from the lack of a broader communication strategy which appropriately and effectively shares information about the succession plan?

(2) Employees who want to be part of the succession plan will become resentful and less focused if they are not chosen to be part of it.

People who feel overlooked may become disillusioned and less committed to their work.  In some cases, they may undermine the chosen successors intentionally or unintentionally.  Some high-performing employees may decide to find a job elsewhere.  Can these potential consequences be avoided by acknowledging the continued worth of employees who are not formally part of the succession plan and making clear the path for their continued progression within the company?

A succession plan may concentrate on “higher-level” and critical roles, but it can also encompass important middle management and senior non-management roles.  Ultimately, is the plan fair and are the guidelines for inclusion available to everyone?  Is the company transparent about how it differentiates talent based on merit?

(3) Employees who are chosen but do not want to be part of the succession plan may feel pressured by the unwanted expectations.

These individuals might also seek to leave the company even though their importance to the company has been explicitly recognized.  Are the succession plans flexible enough to accept that an individual’s own long-term career goals do not include having a central role in the succession plan?  Can the company retain the employee on a career path that meets the needs of both parties?

(4) Performance of chosen successors may drop so that they no longer meet the requirements to take on the designated role.

Has the company indicated that being “chosen” is not a guarantee that employees will succeed someone else in a specified role and that they are on track to be a successor only if they continue to meet certain benchmarks?  Are mechanisms in place to negate feelings of entitlement and the potential for tension between identified successors and other staff?  Is it clear that progression and rewards must be earned at every step along the career path, even for employees who are recognized early as having high potential?

(5) Dissatisfaction and disengagement may result if the opportunity to take on a successor role disappears due to changes in strategy or needs.

Again, is this an issue of communication which makes it clear that there are no guarantees and that succession plans are to some degree tentative and contingent on various factors, including market conditions and relevant skill sets?  Does the company have alternative plans to address the professional and career needs of those who lose the possibility of a specific successor role?

(6) External parties, including recruiters for competing organizations, may gain access to information about a company’s high performing talent and entice them to defect.

Should this possibility not serve as further incentive to ensure the company is an employer of choice?  In the end, even if complete secrecy is maintained, once a high potential individual finally does enter into a new role pursuant to the succession plan, is he or she not still a target for external recruitment?  At that point, an enormous amount of energy and resources will have been expended to prepare and train them for their new role.  The company must be a leader in attracting and retaining talent.

While the above discussion shows that there may be legitimate concerns about informing employees of their role in a succession plan, it also demonstrates that these concerns can be mitigated by a planning process which is proactive in nature.  The next installment will emphasize the positive reasons for being transparent about the succession plan.