Succession planning that survives contact with reality
Every bank has a succession chart. Few have one that works when a seat actually opens.
Regulators increasingly demand succession plans, so institutions produce them: names in boxes, readiness codes, development plans. Then a CXO resigns suddenly and the plan proves decorative - the "ready now" name is not ready, the "ready in two years" name just left, and the chart is a year stale.
Why plans fail
- Readiness assessments made once and never revisited
- Nominees who do not know they are nominated, so their development never actually targets the gap
- No external benchmark: the internal name is never tested against the market
- The plan covers the top three seats while the real fragility sits at level four
The working version
Two names per critical seat, honestly coded, with the specific gap for each ("needs P&L exposure," "needs a regulatory exam cycle"). Tell the nominees - secrecy protects the chart, not the person. Fund the closing of gaps deliberately: rotations, acting stints, board exposure. And refresh quarterly; a succession plan is a living document or it is fiction.
The emergency protocol
Separate from development: who holds each seat tomorrow if the incumbent is gone tonight? Name interim holders for every critical role, and keep a light market map behind them. The time to meet the external bench is before the ambulance is at the door.