Succession Planning
Building a succession bench you can actually name when the moment arrives.
A family-controlled manufacturing group knew its CEO would step down within three years. There were four internal names in the room. Every board conversation about succession ended with 'we should really do this properly.'
The situation
Four internal candidates. A three-year horizon. A board that agreed succession mattered and never quite got to it.
The question we set out to answer
“Which of these four is actually ready — for which version of the role, and against which of the strategies the group is considering?”
How the work was done
- 01
Assessed all four candidates with Penta Personality, the Leadership Assessment, and the Cultural Profile.
- 02
Framed the report against two possible strategic paths the group was weighing, not one generic CEO archetype.
- 03
Sat with each candidate individually to share their development picture.
- 04
Presented the board with a bench view — not a ranking — and the specific development moves that would change it over 24 months.
What changed
Two candidates entered targeted development. One was moved into a role that would clarify readiness. One quietly self-selected out.
-
The board went from an uncomfortable topic to a scheduled quarterly review.
-
Two years later, one internal candidate was ready and named. The alternative path was known and viable.
-
The exiting CEO said, for the first time, that succession felt handled.
The principle behind the case
“Succession is not a name. It is a bench you can act on when the moment arrives — and evidence is what makes acting possible.”