The old woman looks after the child to grow its teeth, and the young one later looks after the old woman when she loses hers.
Succession is often treated as an event: a retirement date is announced, a successor is named, and the organisation prepares a ceremony. By that stage, the most important work should already have happened. Leadership succession is not the moment one person leaves, and another arrives. It is the long process through which authority, judgement, relationships and institutional knowledge are transferred without damaging continuity.
This process should begin before anyone is ready to leave. Potential successors need opportunities to lead consequential work, manage budgets, handle difficult stakeholders and make decisions whose results can be evaluated. An executive who has spent ten years executing instructions does not suddenly acquire independent judgement because a title changes.
Boards and founders also need to distinguish between loyalty and readiness. Long service deserves respect, but it is not automatically evidence of capacity for the next role. Succession decisions should consider competence, character, strategic judgement, credibility with stakeholders and the ability to build other leaders.
The outgoing leader has responsibilities too. One of the hardest parts of succession is allowing the successor to succeed differently. Founders and long-serving chief executives often say they want continuity but unconsciously demand imitation. A successor who must seek approval for every major decision is not succeeding anybody; he is acting as a proxy.
There should also be a plan for relationships. In founder-led businesses, customers, banks and partners may have dealt with one person for years. Those relationships should gradually become institutional rather than personal. Introducing future leaders early allows trust to transfer before the transition becomes urgent.
Documentation is another pillar. The successor should not inherit mysteries. Major obligations, governance arrangements, strategic assumptions, unresolved risks and the history of key decisions should be available in organised form. Institutional memory reduces the temptation to keep the former leader permanently involved because nobody else knows why things are the way they are.
Succession also includes emergency readiness. Organisations that plan only for orderly retirement ignore illness, sudden resignation and other unexpected events. Boards should know who can act immediately, what authority that person will have and how stakeholders will be informed.
The real test of succession is not whether a replacement is named. It is whether the organisation continues to function, retain confidence and make good decisions during and after the transition. When succession is done well, continuity appears almost uneventful. That apparent simplicity is usually the result of years of preparation.
A serious succession plan therefore contains more than a name. It identifies critical roles, potential successors, capability gaps and the experiences people need before they can be trusted with larger responsibility. It also tests whether authority is truly moving. A person who is always present at meetings but never allowed to decide is not being prepared for leadership. Exposure without responsibility creates familiarity, not readiness. Development must include the opportunity to make choices, manage consequences and be accountable for outcomes.
Boards have a special role because succession is too important to remain a private understanding between a founder and a favourite executive. The board should understand the institution’s future leadership needs, review the depth of the management pipeline and ensure that emergency succession is considered alongside long-term transition. This protects both the organisation and the prospective successor. Clear governance reduces the uncertainty and internal politics that often surround leadership change. Succession then becomes what it should be: a managed institutional process rather than a dramatic event triggered by retirement, illness or crisis.
Succession should also be discussed with candour. Potential successors need to know that development is not a promise of appointment, while boards and founders need to avoid creating destructive competition through vague signals. The institution should be able to assess candidates against future requirements rather than personal closeness. In some cases, the right successor may come from outside; in others, an internal leader may already possess the cultural understanding and credibility needed. The point is to keep the choice institutional. A succession process is strongest when it gives the organisation options, reduces surprise and ensures that leadership continuity does not depend on one private conversation held too late.
The founder’s role is especially important: preparing a successor is not surrendering relevance. It is converting personal achievement into continuity and proving that leadership has created something capable of enduring beyond one tenure.
Generations support one another. The best leaders understand that preparing the next leader is not a threat to their importance; it is proof of it. A legacy is not secured by remaining indispensable. It is secured by making the institution capable of moving forward when your own season has ended.
Dr Olufemi Ogunlowo is the CEO of Strategic Outsourcing Limited, a leading provider of personnel and business process outsourcing services in Nigeria. He is also a regular columnist on employment and workforce strategy.
Related News
